Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical

Evangelical · 08-31-2016, 03:23 AM

Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are always in the church, the Body of Christ.

Being in prison did not stop the apostle Paul from being in the church.

The church is something spiritual and mysterious and not confined to the four walls of a building or an organization.

God sees every believer, and considers them all part of His one Body, the church.

Religion has made us believe that we are not in church unless we go somewhere on a Sunday. This is far from the truth.

Whenever a person accepts Christ they are made part of God's family.

But we also must be wise and not accept fellowship with everyone. We should not fellowship with those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11.
- sexual immorality
- greed
- idolatry
- slander
- drunkards
- con artists and extortioners

aron · 08-31-2016, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are always in the church, the Body of Christ.

Being in prison did not stop the apostle Paul from being in the church.

Unfortunately I'm an amateur and not qualified to teach or edify. But we're all priests and kings, and can at least hold forth on the word. (somewhat).

It seems to me that you overlay current meaning onto ancient text, and create an ontological entity that shouldn't exist in its own right, the creation of which becomes a distortion and diversion.

Our faith is in Christ, right? At least Luther got that right. And Wesley. They were refused the sacraments of the church but they had faith, and didn't waver. We gather in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the name of some church programme, or doctrine, or theology, or ministry (of the age!! - sorry, couldn't resist). The gathered faithful, assembled by the Holy Spirit, are focused on the One who can lead them home to the Father of lights. Instead, however, the gathering becomes focused on the gathering. The bride begins to eye her garments, and suppose herself a queen. She takes her eyes off the King, and light becomes darkness. And how great is the darkness!

The word 'ekklesia' predated Christ by centuries. See e.g. LXX, "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I'll sing hymns of praise to Thee". Jesus didn't invent some new term or idea when He told Peter that He'd build "My church". The focus of the church, or meeting, or gathering, is on Jesus, and on Jesus alone. Jesus is the drawing power, Jesus the Architect and Builder, Jesus the light, Jesus the Shepherd and sole trustworthy voice. "In these last days God has spoken to us in the Son. . ." (Heb 1)

I'm not saying any of your statements are wrong. And perhaps your devotion to the Lord puts mine to shame. But to posit the church as an ontological entity in its own right is a prelude to distraction, and opens a door for fierce men and women to rise up and mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Freedom · 08-31-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

It seems to me that you overlay current meaning onto ancient text, and create an ontological entity that shouldn't exist in its own right, the creation of which becomes a distortion and diversion.

The word 'ekklesia' predated Christ by centuries. See e.g. LXX, "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I'll sing hymns of praise to Thee". Jesus didn't invent some new term or idea when He told Peter that He'd build "My church". The focus of the church, or meeting, or gathering, is on Jesus, and on Jesus alone. Jesus is the drawing power, Jesus the Architect and Builder, Jesus the light, Jesus the Shepherd and sole trustworthy voice. "In these last days God has spoken to us in the Son. . ." (Heb 1)

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Take the very premise of the ground of locality - that there can only be one church per city. If we replace the word church with assembly/gathering, what the LC is really saying is that there can only be one assembly per city. It's a ridiculous notion, and not even the LC practices this. So this leads us to the immediate conclusion that the word church has an alternative meaning to LCers, and this meaning is what that the ground of locality is based upon. If we are to view the church as it is found in the bible, any talk of boundaries, territory or 'ground' of the assembly starts to sound strikingly divisive.

It's also interesting to consider certain ideas of the church that were summarily dismissed, ones which Evangelical has also dismissed. One of which is referring to a building as a church. What is any religious building for? It is for assembly. That is the one and only purpose of any "meeting hall"/building. So it's not all that erroneous to refer to a building as a church. I'm not suggesting that people should do that, but I'm saying that it's a relatively minor issue if someone wants to do so. Same thing with the phrase "going to church". If we operate with the understanding that the church an assembly (any assembly), then you quickly realize that the saying "going to church" is basically the equivalent of "going to assemble". What's the big deal with saying that? I don't see anything wrong. In essence, a reaction to seemingly erroneous notions about the church caused Nee and Lee to form even more erroneous notions.

Ohio · 08-31-2016, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Great points here.

Before I left the LC's, the Lord led me to study the Brethren and their early splits. I studied their early principles, and how they diverged over time. I found one of John Darby's earliest writings to be very significant. I have posted this before. Darby felt that their unity was based upon a common judgment of evil.

This has become the basis for all exclusivism. Both Nee and Lee followed Darby in this line of reasoning concerning the uniting bonds of the church. History tells us that years after their initial split, inclusion in exclusive Brethren circles required the judgment of George Muller. If new congregants or assemblies refused to condemn Muller, they could not receive the "right hand of fellowship" from Darby and the exclusives.

Thus the oneness of the LC's has little to do with the seven "one's" in Ephesians 4. Ask Titus Chu, he got quarantined for allowing drums and guitars, asking for clean sheets, and publishing his own books. Same thing happened to Dong in Brazil. This is why the Blendeds will never work with outside churches; sue them yes, but never work with them, because they were trained by Lee that oneness is not what we have in common, but how we judge others.

And remember ... only the headquarters in Anaheim can decide what we are to judge. And when convenient, the "victims" may change from from time to time. I understand this month they like the Catholics for teaching deification.

OBW · 08-31-2016, 02:41 PM

Wherever you go
Whatever you do
Whatever you say
Say, say, say
Say it with love.

(couldn't resist the similarity to the Moodies in that first post)

aron · 08-31-2016, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Take the very premise of the ground of locality - that there can only be one church per city. . . . If we are to view the church as it is found in the bible, any talk of boundaries, territory or 'ground' of the assembly starts to sound strikingly divisive.

This is my argument. "The church isn't this and that", all these straw men to take our eyes off of Jesus. Then to save you from the boogeyman they give you the "new and pure" church, which is NOT THE STRAWMAN!! Hurray!! Now we can just love Jesus! Right!?

Wrong. We merely created a new non-strawmen entity, based upon our imagination, and selective response to our modest sensory input. "And the last state of the man was worse than the first." Ineed, not trusting in the all-seeing and all-knowing God, we trust our feeble perceptions. We look around and perceive multiple assemblies, and declare, "division". How do we know God doesn't look around and see multiplication? Why, because we don't want to, is why - we only see what we want to see.

Lee took it so far that he declared that in order to be one, all the local churches had to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever". Whatever happened to living stones? Now we're identical bricks! Whatever happened to "every tribe and people and tongue"? Now we're a smoothie. Every distinction homogeneously blended away into a ministry smoothie. But it's not the boogeyman!!

It started out with the church, then local ground, and boundaries. Then Deputy God, Handing Over, the Jerusalem Principle, the Work, the Ministry, God's New Move, Vital Groups, the Building Up, God's One Trumpet, God's Oracle, the Feeling in the Body. . . can I stop now? Or will the strawmen get us?

Freedom · 08-31-2016, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

This is my argument. "The church isn't this and that", all these straw men to take our eyes off of Jesus. Then to save you from the boogeyman they give you the "new and pure" church, which is NOT THE STRAWMAN!! Hurray!! Now we can just love Jesus! Right!?

Wrong. We merely created a new non-strawmen entity, based upon our imagination, and selective response to our modest sensory input. "And the last state of the man was worse than the first." Ineed, not trusting in the all-seeing and all-knowing God, we trust our feeble perceptions. We look around and perceive multiple assemblies, and declare, "division". How do we know God doesn't look around and see multiplication? Why, because we don't want to, is why - we only see what we want to see.

A strawman is exactly what it is, and it's all too easy to fall victim to this kind of tactic. Especially as Christians, we want to stand for what is right, and also stand against whatever contradicts the Bible. Unfortunately, manipulative leaders know how to use people's resolve to stand for what's right to their own advantage, in order to provoke a desired reaction.

Enter Lee. There was no end to his talk about "degraded Christianity." He told LC members exactly what "other Christians" believed. No one questioned such a view. The resulting strawman was constructed effortlessly. Some of the early LCers came in dissatisfied with other Christians groups. Thus, the attacks against other churches resonated with them. Those like me who grew up in the LC never saw for ourselves what other Christians were like. We were told what they were like and we had no reason to believe otherwise because we looked up to those leading us.

What was missing from the whole equation was a validation of the things being asserted.

Evangelical · 08-31-2016, 09:15 PM

Nee positively defines what the church is in his book "Normal Christian Church Life".

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

It is important to realize that the ground of locality in no way implies a perfect church. The churches mentioned in Revelation were genuine local churches but all but one had problems.

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church.

Within a city are not merely "multiple assemblies" as some here claim. Christians don't just "go to a building" they go to a building with a name, that was founded by a particular organization, there are often two or more buildings on the same street, and they don't talk to or coordinate with each other (as if they are completely different religions). It is as if they do not have the same Father, Christ and Spirit.

The situation is different from the "multiple assemblies" of the Bible.

Furthermore, is the situation of degraded Christianity. The book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola Author and George Barna reveals how much of what is accepted as Christianity today is actually paganism.

It was the degraded Catholic church that caused Luther and others to separate from her, and so on and so forth until Christ returns.

aron · 09-01-2016, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

The resulting strawman was constructed effortlessly.

That it's an ideational strawman to advance an argument, can be seen in how it's selectively applied. The boogeyman, here labeled "Christianity", is fallen, devilish, and degraded. On the contrary, "God sees no iniquity in the church" that is created by the argument. Lee told us to "forgive the messy kitchen" of the LC, ut the messy kitchen of "Christianity" was never forgiven, or overlooked; on the contrary it was raised again and again, and paraded before the assembly.

I could go on and on. I'll never forget the testimony from the Full-Time Training Taipei, from the so-called New Move: "If Christianity does it, then it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." That was one of the hand-picked cadre of the trainers speaking, to the astonishment of American elders and co-workers who were being re-educated.

aron · 09-01-2016, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church. .

Can a church save you, yes or no? Luther and Wesley got it right. So true churches and false churches are irrelevant; by attempting to discriminate you arguably reveal yourself to be false. By what measure you measure, it will be measured of you.

In your initial post you mentioned what constituted false Christians, the immorality, confusion, drunkenness, etc. We should indeed refuse fellowship with such behavior. This is not doctrine, but common sense. Lee brought us into his 'true church', where in order to keep LC oneness, we had to overlook immorality, drunkenness, and confusion. As one sister put it brightly, after the latest "move" was announced; "Well, it's the church!"

Freedom · 09-01-2016, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

The way in which the Bible refers to assemblies does not 'reveal' anything. Besides, the Bible doesn't always refer to assemblies by the city in which they are located. Take for instances the opening of Philemon:
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house

UntoHim · 09-01-2016, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church.

Evangelical, how did you get from "imperfect local church" to "imperfect local division"? What's the determining factor(s)? WHO gets to decide which is which?

I think you may want to have a talk with some of the brothers from the Great Lakes/Canada area about this local church verses local division business.

You see, once upon a time there was ONE imperfect local church in Toronto (one which followed the ministry of Witness Lee). Then, once upon a time some brothers came up from Anaheim Calif to declare that the imperfect local church in Toronto was all of the sudden considered as an imperfect local division! And then, so very conveniently, these brothers from Anaheim set up their own meeting and declared THEIR IMPERFECT LOCAL CHURCH to be the true "Church in Toronto".

Let's humor for a minute the poor fellow who just dropped in from Mars and knew nothing about imperfect local churches or imperfect local divisions - - WHICH IMPERFECT LOCAL MEETING PLACE SHOULD HE CONSIDER TO BE THE TRUE LOCAL CHURCH IN TORONTO?

This is not a trick question my dear friend. It does, however, have some huge implications on the practical implication of any "local church" that claims to have Jesus Christ and the Bible as it's only factor of oneness.

By the way...Welcome to LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, the only imperfect venue for open discussions regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Churches established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

-

OBW · 09-01-2016, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nee positively defines what the church is in his book "Normal Christian Church Life".

According to his opinion based on the exclusion of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

That is like saying "All cars are black. The fact that you see cars of different colors does not disprove the rule because the rule says that all cars are black. And the rule is right."

It is a serious logical error. The error (under many names) in which the evidence against a proposition is dismissed because the proposition is presumed correct. It is a variant on begging the question in which an unsupported statement is made and then used to refute and/or dismiss evidence against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Within a city are not merely "multiple assemblies" as some here claim. Christians don't just "go to a building" they go to a building with a name, that was founded by a particular organization . . . .

And if that is really a problem for Christianity, then Nee, followed by Lee and his other coworkers, simply added to the number of buildings housing assemblies with names. That they claim theirs is not a name but merely a description is hardly meaningful when using any other moniker format but theirs is dismissed as error. And if someone is already using their non-name name, they figure out how to get around it so they can use it anyway.

You are not the first to come here thinking that the doctrine of dirt (not found in the Bible) is the key to Christian unity and that it is only found in the churches that follow Lee. Oddly, even those following the doctrine of dirt are dividing among themselves. And suing each other.

And it is the "original" that is the most egregious in the lawsuit category.

So the "right" church is the most "wrong."

Go figure.

Evangelical · 09-01-2016, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

According to his opinion based on the exclusion of evidence to the contrary.
And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

That is like saying "All cars are black. The fact that you see cars of different colors does not disprove the rule because the rule says that all cars are black. And the rule is right."

It is a serious logical error. The error (under many names) in which the evidence against a proposition is dismissed because the proposition is presumed correct. It is a variant on begging the question in which an unsupported statement is made and then used to refute and/or dismiss evidence against it.
And if that is really a problem for Christianity, then Nee, followed by Lee and his other coworkers, simply added to the number of buildings housing assemblies with names. That they claim theirs is not a name but merely a description is hardly meaningful when using any other moniker format but theirs is dismissed as error. And if someone is already using their non-name name, they figure out how to get around it so they can use it anyway.

You are not the first to come here thinking that the doctrine of dirt (not found in the Bible) is the key to Christian unity and that it is only found in the churches that follow Lee. Oddly, even those following the doctrine of dirt are dividing among themselves. And suing each other.

And it is the "original" that is the most egregious in the lawsuit category.

So the "right" church is the most "wrong."

Go figure.

Let's talk about logical errors shall we?

Why is it that no denominational names and only city names can be found in reference to churches in the Bible?

Why does the Bible frequently use the term "the church" and not "your church".

What the Bible says:
Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church"

What you hear:
Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to your church".

The concept of "my church" and "your church" is not in the Bible.

Evangelical · 09-01-2016, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evangelical, how did you get from "imperfect local church" to "imperfect local division"? What's the determining factor(s)? WHO gets to decide which is which?

I think you may want to have a talk with some of the brothers from the Great Lakes/Canada area about this local church verses local division business.

You see, once upon a time there was ONE imperfect local church in Toronto (one which followed the ministry of Witness Lee). Then, once upon a time some brothers came up from Anaheim Calif to declare that the imperfect local church in Toronto was all of the sudden considered as an imperfect local division! And then, so very conveniently, these brothers from Anaheim set up their own meeting and declared THEIR IMPERFECT LOCAL CHURCH to be the true "Church in Toronto".

Let's humor for a minute the poor fellow who just dropped in from Mars and knew nothing about imperfect local churches or imperfect local divisions - - WHICH IMPERFECT LOCAL MEETING PLACE SHOULD HE CONSIDER TO BE THE TRUE LOCAL CHURCH IN TORONTO?

This is not a trick question my dear friend. It does, however, have some huge implications on the practical implication of any "local church" that claims to have Jesus Christ and the Bible as it's only factor of oneness.

By the way...Welcome to LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, the only imperfect venue for open discussions regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Churches established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.
-

Have you ever heard the moon analogy? If not I will tell you, it is a good one.
If we are in London and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in London".
If we are in New York and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in New York".
How many moons are there? Only one.
How many visible expressions of it are there? One per city.

To confine a church to a particular assembly hall or ministry is to make it too narrow. To say the church is a national or international church is to make it too big.
The Bible only speaks of the church being in a particular location.

Now suppose someone comes along and says, you know what? That moon is kind of ugly, I can do it better. I'm going to make it better and give it a new name. They then take the moon, improve it, and give it a name, "The Improved Moon". That is essentially denominationalism. That has happened, what, 10,000 or so times now? Every denomination has a name other than its locality.

Leaving denominationalism to go to the ground of locality, is not creating a new denomination. I know that is hard for some to understand, because they are so used to the idea of a divided Christianity.
Leaving denominationalism, to create a new church called "the such and such non-denominational free church", IS creating a new denomination.

So based on this, I would say that if both are on the ground of locality then they are both the "one church in Toronto".
An imperfect local church is a church on the ground of locality.
An imperfect division is a church on the ground of a denominational organization or institution. This is a human addition to God's plan.
Even if such a denomination were perfect in terms of brotherly love and sin, it cannot be truly perfect as it is a division.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

The way in which the Bible refers to assemblies does not 'reveal' anything. Besides, the Bible doesn't always refer to assemblies by the city in which they are located. Take for instances the opening of Philemon:
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house

This is how Jesus referred to assemblies-

Revelation 1:11
saying "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

Ephesus is a church - city, not denomination, house/street name, or country
Smyrna is a church - city, not denomination...
Pergamum is a church- city, not denomination...
Thyatira is a church- city, not denomination...
Sardis is a church - city, not denomination...
Philadelphia is a church - city, not denomination...
Laodicea is a church - city, not denomination...

Here, Jesus refers to churches by city name, and seven of them, proving that "a church" is a church in a city.
He does not call them the "Church in Asia".
They are called the "churches in Asia" proving that each city was one church.
He does not refer to them by their doctrine, founder, or beliefs, despite all their differences.

This is the New Testament pattern about church names given to us in the Bible.

A biblical church is all the believers in a city.

How many churches in your town/city? 10, 100, 1000? In the Bible both Paul and Jesus only refer to one per city.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

City-church rule is proven by the fact that in Revelation 1:11 it only counts SEVEN churches.

Revelation 1:11
saying "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

If a regional church, it would count less than 7.
If house assemblies were considered churches, it would count more than 7.

Furthermore we find that there are seven lamp stands:
"And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands." (Revelation 1:12).

Each lamp stand symbolizes only one local church in each city.

I'm afraid that you have little biblical evidence to support your notion that each assembly in each house could be considered a church, or that a church can comprise of multiple localities. Yes it does say the "church in " this house and that house, but this means the "assembly", and besides, the whole church of a city would not fit inside a house.

That's the way Jesus Himself referred to his own churches, you would have to admit that there are many beliefs and practices in Christianity that are based upon far less biblical evidence than that which I have provided here.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 04:53 AM

Watchman Nee was highly influenced by EM Barber, who held to Keswick theology and numerous others including Roman Catholic mystical quietists.
If you hold to Nee's theology you are essentially a Keswick theologian.

But suppose you reject Nee and Lee and choose to just "follow Christ". It sounds noble, it sounds spiritual, but let's see for a moment if that is even possible. We are still a follower of someone. Everyone's a follower of someone, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to read the Bible with a neutral and unbiased mind. Born in America? Your reading of the Bible will be skewed by your American worldview. Are you African? You may interpret some parables of Jesus differently to someone would in the West, as your ideas of the family and social structure may be different. All of these things skew our interpretation of the Bible.

What is your natural disposition? This will influence which Bible verses "stand out" to you the most, and upon which ones you like to dwell.

What version of the Bible did you read? King James? He ordered that the scribes change some of the words in the bible to better reflect his views of his church, the church of England. They made a new version of the Bible to suit their purposes and desires.

Do you believe in salvation by grace alone? You follow Martin Luther.
Luther wrote some harsh things against the Jews:

"On the Jews and Their Lies"
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

Believe in total depravity, free grace? God's sovereignty? You follow Calvin.
Calvin condemned a man to death:
“On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva"

Read Paul's letter to the Corinthians? You follow Paul.
Read the Gospel of Luke? You follow Luke and his spin on the gospel, as opposed to Matthew.

Accept the New Testament Canon? You follow the so many men who chose what should go in that.
Have an English version of the Bible? Others decided how it should be translated for you, you didn't get the choice.

Believe in the Trinity? - chances are you were "brainwashed" to believe in that by others, or you would be labelled a "heretic" and cast out of your mainstream denomination if you didn't. Try to prove you got it from the Bible? Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. The original said:
With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

Believe in the Nicene Creed? Constantine and early Roman Catholic fathers in 325 AD wrote that for you to believe today. Jesus never wrote or said it.

Bible chapter and verse numbering - your view is skewed by this too. Sometimes it is incorrect and distorts the context. A person who knows Hebrew well might tell you.

You may not have books written by Luther, Calvin, King James, on your shelves, but it is their thoughts and philosophies that influence your thinking today and those that came before. In addition to the thoughts and philosophies of your society, your family, friends, and your own random thoughts and imaginations as well.

When you sit with your Bible alone and think you are getting the pure unadulterated Word of God and becoming a better theologian because the Spirit is magically giving you all of the "sound teaching" that others cannot give you, better think again.

aron · 09-02-2016, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everyone's a follower of someone, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to read the Bible with a neutral and unbiased mind. Born in America? Your reading of the Bible will be skewed by your American worldview. Are you African? You may interpret some parables of Jesus differently to someone would in the West, as your ideas of the family and social structure may be different. All of these things skew our interpretation of the Bible. .

According to Lee (I'm going by memory here) Nee read all the different teachings, took the good and chucked the bad. He used different writers and ministries and views to balance each other out, and not fall into any trap of extreme or unbalanced interpretation.

So why then, aren't we accorded the same privilege in the local church of Nee and Lee? Why suddenly the One Trumpet? Why can't we take the good (assuming there is some) in the LSM and toss the bad?

Why did the age turn with Nee? Don't you think this is too subjective by half? Or even three quarters? Nee got to read everyone, and pick through, but if we tried it we'd merely get confused? Was Nee really that great?

And then, when Lee passed, no more Spiritual Giants? Only read the Great Man's words and stay in the ministry? Is this not a too hopeful and too subjective reading of the course of history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your natural disposition? This will influence which Bible verses "stand out" to you the most, and upon which ones you like to dwell. .

Somehow Nee avoided the natural disposition of the Chinese? Because he was raised up on the "virgin soil" of China, he could come at the Bible free from the Eurocentric worldview and finally cut straight the word of truth?

The narrative is so self-serving as to be delusional. It can only exist in the hermetically-sealed world of the local church of Nee and Lee.

Cal · 09-02-2016, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I make no apologies. If you want local church members to post here then expect local church answers.

It's not the model "I prefer". It's the model revealed in the Bible. Time and time again when the local church is mentioned it is by the locality (the city name etc).

The Bible mentions the church in the city, but it doesn't command that we meet "as" the church in the city. There are at least four instances in the NT that mention a church "in the house" and there is no reason to assume the church in the house is the same as the church in the city unless you've already predetermined it is, which is circular thinking. Further there is one other place were it mentions the church in a region, Galatia.

Now you can rationalize these other manifestations of church away, as Nee did, but as I said the only ground to do it is if you've predetermined that the church in the city is the only valid "ground," which is faulty reasoning. So therefore the church in the city as the only valid model is put in reasonable question. Therefore insisting on the church in the city, discounting other manifestations of church, is unreasonable and so in violation of the NT command to "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind." Which is why the LCM mindset is wrong.

I believe the church in the city exists. But there is no compelling reason to believe that it must be organized and administrated as the LCM is. The LCM superficially calls itself the church in the city and thinks if you call yourself that then that's what you are. It doesn't work that way.

Further, there is no way of determining whether the "elders" of a group which claims to be the church in the city are actually the elders God wants everyone in that city to follow. Suppose there are two groups claiming to be the church in the city. Which one do you join? This problem actually exists. You know what the LCM does? They just say the other group is invalid. As if they have "franchise rights." Oh really? Now, why would that be?

How do I know if another group starts meeting as the church in the city that they are not the ones to meet with? That others were there first? "Squatters right?" That they claim be following the right ministry? There's your hierarchy. The LCM has never joined another existing city church. Every time they've come across one they've either taken it over, or if it refuses that they've discounted it and started another church. That's some of the history of your movement you've chosen to ignore.

The LCM has historically rejected any group which called itself the church in the city that didn't submit to their little movement. They find some convenient reason to discount it. What gives the LCM movement the right to do this kind of thing? To be judge, jury and executioner of every church that doesn't align itself with them? Please explain.

Quote:

You cannot find a denominational or a hierarchical structured model anywhere in the Bible. I do the right thing and request others to present to me these "different models" and no one can show me.

Already shown you the house churches. There is nothing in the Bible that says a church can't have a "name." Plus the LCM is a hierarchy going right up to the Blendeds. Not admitting that is just denial.

Quote:

Please listen to yourself. Trying to argue that such an important matter as the church is not something Jesus revealed to us.

Please listen to yourself. You are a tiny sect of Christianity yet you are insisting that you are doing church right and everyone else in history has done it wrong. You have set yourself up as the judges of every Christian group in the world. You have expected everyone to line up with you, and if they don't, you've declared them as outside of God's genuine move. In the meantime, people are getting saved, growing, being shepherded and building the church outside your little walls and the only way you are getting new members is stealing their sheep because you can't seem to get anyone saved yourselves. Yet you are right and everyone else is wrong. Yessiree.

This is classic sect/cult thinking: "We are the only one's that see it." What are the odds that this is true? What are the odds that only you guys get it, especially considering that there is no evidence that the LCM way has produced better, wiser, more mature, etc, Christians than anyone else. In fact, often the opposite is true. I've come in contact with LCMers I knew decades ago. I don't get any sense they have more growth or a better relationship with God than me. In fact, in some ways they seem stunted.

You're like the Mormons. The Mormons believe they are among the few who've figured out that Jesus really isn't God. They claim to be Christians, but the odds are extremely remote that they've got it right and the other 99% have it wrong. This simple fact never occurs to them. Apparently it never occurs to you either.

Quote:

Or you are merely recounting negative experiences that happened decades ago in the 70's and 80's. Things seem to have moved on, the LR has moved on. Welcome to the 21st Century.

I would say you are actually very ignorant of the history of the group you are giving you life to.

Quote:

The things done in the name of Christianity by the denominations has far exceeded any negative thing that the LR has ever done as far as I see it. Inquisitions, murders, etc.

Yet you are all defending them as if they are the exemplar of what church is all about.

Let's stick to recent history, okay? Every group has problems. You are one unwilling to face the recent ugliness in the group you belong to. You are the one ignoring recent history.

Quote:

Hopefully my post has demonstrated enough "independent thought" for my little brainwashed mind

.

Not really.

Ohio · 09-02-2016, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When you sit with your Bible alone and think you are getting the pure unadulterated Word of God and becoming a better theologian because the Spirit is magically giving you all of the "sound teaching" that others cannot give you, better think again.

I guess God's word and an occasional diversity of ministers is plenty enough for me these days. I was specifically told that going back to the pure word of God was a "tactic of the enemy." But isn't reading the ministry of just one man in place of the Bible also a "tactic of the enemy?"

And what if I no longer value "being a better theologian?" What if loving God and loving my neighbor are sufficient goals in my christian life? Actually, studying Lee full-time was way easier than what Jesus has personally instructed us to do.

And btw I saw all kinds of brothers at LSM serving out of their natural life, violating scriptural commands, and "killing" their brothers, all the while thinking they were serving God.

Cal · 09-02-2016, 08:55 AM

I assume you started this thread as a response to my points about being a follower of Lee rather than Christ.

Look there is nothing wrong in principle with following a teacher or being influenced by one. The problem comes in when you don't feel the freedom to follow the leading of the Lord when it contradicts the teacher. I mentioned this specifically about the LCM trying to influence people not to leave the movement. When you believe that the Lord would never lead someone to lead the LCM the fact is you put following Lee and the LCM leaders above following Christ. Because whether you like or not the Lord could lead someone to leave your movement.

So if you are responding to me you missed my point.

Ohio · 09-02-2016, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But suppose you reject Nee and Lee and choose to just "follow Christ". It sounds noble, it sounds spiritual, but let's see for a moment if that is even possible.

Obviously you are reading from the same "talking points" I used to speak from.

But as someone who has been both "in and out," things don't always appear as they seem.

Let me relay one "shocking development" I came across in ~2003. I was reading Nee's classic The Normal Christian Church Life with a few brothers. I could not believe my eyes! Page by page we were comparing Nee's early teachings with the practices of Witness Lee and now the Blended Brothers. Oh what a shocker! Nothing matched! Not even by a mile.

Could you believe that most Baptist denominations were closer to Nee's teachings than LSM was? And all along we had thought that Nee's book was a guide of sorts to LSM and the LC's.

Dear brother Evangelical, since you so value Watchman Nee's teachings and the Recovery, please go back and do the same. If you like, I could give you a guided tour, that is if I can retrieve my book, which I gave to an old friend.

OBW · 09-02-2016, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's talk about logical errors shall we?

Why is it that no denominational names and only city names can be found in reference to churches in the Bible?

Do you really understand logical errors? You have just presented us with a false dichotomy.

The dichotomy is false for two reasons. First, there are not "only city names" found in reference to churches, so your second option is invalid. And it is invalid because there are more than two options.

Want to rethink your understanding of logical errors?

There are at least three different references made — regions, cities, and houses (by the name of the owner of the house). And there is nothing that makes these names for the churches rather than designations of where it is that the particular Christians (which are the church — whether universal or local) are that are mentioned or written to. And whether it is or is not a name, it is clearly a description of what Christians are being referred to.

But there is nothing insisting that it is a name. That is an overlay that Nee and Lee insisted upon without anything more than a declaration that it is simply so. But it is not simply so. That is a misrepresentation of the available information.

Could it actually be true? It is possible. But it is also possible that it is simply a description (not a prescription). But even if it is a prescription, it will always be a description. But the fact that it is always a description does not in any way comment on whether it is or is not a prescription. So just saying the name of a city, region, or house does not prescribe anything. At least not without something decreeing it to be the way to address or name a church.

And while I can accept that there could be a truth that is not clearly prescribed, I would need to be assured that there is nothing that stands in opposition before I at least remain neutral on the subject. But there is the church in a house." It is referring to a church without mentioning a city. And it is within a letter that has been labeled as to a city, so if this house is within that city, then there is a serious question as to whether that is being referenced as a church (the church) different from the ones otherwise reading the letter. And if it is in a different city, why wasn't the city named rather than the house?

And this is not the only case. There are at least 2 or 3.

They stand in opposition to the notion that churches are designated by city. And you cannot invoke the city-church rule to dismiss them as meaning something else. That would be to use the unproved rule to dismiss evidence that it is not a valid rule. Circular reasoning. Begging the Question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why does the Bible frequently use the term "the church" and not "your church".

. . . .

The concept of "my church" and "your church" is not in the Bible.

You are right. But if the underlying meaning of "church" is assembly, then the one I meet with is "mine" in a loose sense of the word. We use the word loosely in this day and age to mean something besides "something that belongs to me." We also use it to identify with something. "My church" simply means the one with which I meet. If not finding that phrase in the Bible makes that particular meaning bad or wrong, then it also does not mention so many other things. Lack of mention of something that is of no moral or spiritual consequence does not mean it is precluded.

Now I would agree that if someone says that with the thought of "my church, the one that is right while yours is wrong" then there is a problem with the term.

And I know a lot of people who say things like that. And I know some that would never say "my church" but they still refer to the one that they are meeting with while thinking exactly that.

Whether someone says "the church" or "my church" is neutral in itself. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical. It is in the intents of the heart saying it that it takes on any additional characterization.

OBW · 09-02-2016, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Have you ever heard the moon analogy? If not I will tell you, it is a good one.
If we are in London and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in London".
If we are in New York and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in New York".
How many moons are there? Only one.
How many visible expressions of it are there? One per city.

Who came up with this analogy? There is only one expression of the moon. The only difference is not the moon or its expression, but the observer and their location. That makes it all about the people and the places and not about the moon.

You can look at the moon "while in London" or "from London." But it is not ever "the moon in London" other than to be a phrase meaning "the moon as observed from London."

But the word "church" in its original language has meaning that is primarily local, NOT universal. It is about meeting. It is an actual, physical gathering or assembly of people, not a declaration of common bond, like an ethnic group.

It is fairly clear that there are some references where the term in singular ("church" rather than "churches") was used in reference to what could have been more than one single assembly. But there is nothing that negates that the separate assemblies are, in themselves "the church." It just doesn't say anything about it. And there is nothing in this which declares any kind of "boundary" to the group that comprises an assembly (church).

Are there some mentions in the Bible to a universal church? I want to say "yes." But even the ones that I think are may be no more than statements about the churches (all of them) individually by reference to each of them singularly as "church." The characteristics being referred to are universally true. They are the theologically sound facts concerning the church(es) therefore do not need reference to separate groups as all are the same.

Does that make all churches the same? Obviously not. Otherwise the problems in Galatia would have been the problems in Ephesus, Smyrna, Philippi, Colossae, etc. There would be only one epistle to cover everything.

So I would suggest that the moon analogy is really irrelevant.

TLFisher · 09-02-2016, 11:58 AM

Just by the threads title "Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship", my last visit to Southern California in 2014, there was a HWFMR that caught my attention. Basically fellowship is only according to "the ministry". "The ministry" as we know is a coded word meaning LSM publications. That being said, LSM is the basis for fellowship. Where I live in Renton, the local church won't fellowship apart from the ministry? Would they fellowship with other assemblies? I'd venture to say not. To fellowship apart from LSM would require a locality to lose their uniqueness and be just like all other Christian assemblies. Thus the thread's title is appropriate, "always in the church, but not always in fellowship".

OBW · 09-02-2016, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

City-church rule is proven by the fact that in Revelation 1:11 it only counts SEVEN churches.

You have insufficient information to declare that the one verse makes any kind of declarative statement. Are you sure that the reference is intended to be to seven assemblies that are tied by official name (and the only official way to name) to the cities? Or was there only one assembly in each at the time? You cannot declare something to be simply true based on a lack of information upon which to define your terms.

Besides, if you need to take all of the words as being precise statements of fact, then Rev 1:11 may be declaring that there are, at that time, only seven churches. It does not say send letters to "these particular churches." I will note that certain translations indicate "which are in Asia" but it seems most do not. Different source texts? You chose the one without the designator. But even if it was to be limited to churches in Asia, are you sure that those were the only ones in Asia? Most historical writings describe these seven as the "major churches" in the Roman province of Asia. Not the only ones. And at least one of the house churches (which you deny as being what they are described as in the Bible) are in this region. If that house church had been the church in some other city, why wasn't Paul up on his doctrine and instead referred to them by their city name and not this erroneous descriptor?

In short, even trying to use this one, you dismiss too much as irrelevant so that you can force an unstated prescription on the nature of the church.

Reminds me of Father Guido Sarducci (from SNL) telling of the American they made into a saint by waiving one of the required miracles. "They just a waved a miracle."

Or Adam Savage "I reject your reality and replace it with my own."

I once thought as you do. But one day I realized that it didn't really say what we were taught. There was something added. And something taken away. Once you do that, you are not really talking about the Bible anymore. Just some of the words from it so heavily edited that they bear little resemblance to what they were in their context.

Cal · 09-02-2016, 12:24 PM

(Moved from other thread).

I have no problem with a group not caring to take a name, or meeting as the church in a city. What I have a problem with is when they say other groups are not the church because they don't meet that way. The Bible doesn't give us enough information or ground to do this. This is why the LCM is in error.

There is one church in every city, just like there is one universal church. But we don't have to meet "as" the church in the city, nor call ourselves the church in the city to be the church in the city, at least part of it. And we don't lose our standing as the church in the city if we meet under the name of "Hyde Park Community Church" or whatever. The Bible never says any group meeting in the Lord's name can "lose its standing" as the church.

Like I said there is one church in the city. There are also many churches. Just as the Bible mentions the church in the city and it mentions the churches in the homes. We are all part of the church in the city. We can't lose that standing. The Lord can come and "remove the lampstand," but we can't remove it, unless, I guess, we all move away.

The LCM model jumps to conclusions and take liberties with its own interpretations. They assume because there is one church in the city that everyone needs follow one official set of elders, of course theirs. But the LCM cannot say how those elders gain their status. The best they can say is they are appointed by an apostle. But that's just kicking the can down the road because how do you determine who is the apostle? The LCM assumed it was Lee, which was just that, an assumption. Now they assume it is the Blendeds, another assumption.

So based on blind assumptions the LCM has decided that only their churches are valid and all other manifestations of the church in a city are invalid. These assumptions, based on a reading of the Bible which is rejected by 99.99% of the Body of Christ, simply cannot support the profound and grave implications they lead to--that 99.99% of Christians are not meeting "as the church" and therefore do not have the standing of the church.

Further when a group does meet as the church in the city, but does not follow LSM, the LCM has never recognized it, at least not after it became clear the group was not going to submit to their sway. Every existing group that the LSM-led church has encountered which has not joined their movement has been declared not genuine. If this isn't a hierarchical, not to mention shady, organization then what is it?

The bottom line is this simply cannot be the way the Lord operates. It's just another version of Catholicism, where a central command center decides who's in and who's out. The Lord could never start anything fresh with this kind of standard. The thing would ossify with the entrenched, unaccountable leadership.

That's where the LCM is now. If God attempts a "recovery" there's no way it could happen with them. Did you know the Exclusive Brethren still call themselves "the recovery" too.

When will people learn?

Cal · 09-02-2016, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's the way Jesus Himself referred to his own churches, you would have to admit that there are many beliefs and practices in Christianity that are based upon far less biblical evidence than that which I have provided here.

Again, just because Jesus sent messages to seven churches designated by cities is no evidence that each of those churches were organized under one formal eldership in the manner the LCM insists upon, anymore than when Paul used the term "church" in Ephesians 1 he envisioned one eldership over that church.

The "universal" church need not have one eldership. Neither does the city church. The city church could just be in the same principle as the universal church but within the boundaries of the geographical area of a city. The fact that the NT also mentions a regional church and house churches supports this. A "church" can simply be a segment of God's people seen from a particular perspective, whether universal, regional, city or house. It can be a very concrete and specific group which actually meet together, but doesn't have to be.

The LCM uses the idea that the letter had to be sent somewhere, so the churches must each have one address or at least one headquarters address. But, again, there is not enough evidence to support this interpretation. The fact that the letters are addressed to "the angel" of each church, rather than an elder or the church itself also can suggest the view of the "church" in these instances is more abstract. Why didn't Jesus address the letters to the elders or leaders? Why to the angel? Perhaps because it would take the work of an angel to get the message to all the Christians in each city in the various ways they met.

So, again, the LCM proprietary city-church model, as repeated verbatim here by Evangelical with apparently no intervening critical reflection by him, is arbitrary. It may be true. But there is really not enough biblical evidence for it to carry the weight of its monumental implications--that the LCM gets to regard every church but those in their movement as being invalid manifestations of God's church. The doctrine is just too filled with holes to damn every Christian group than doesn't line up with it.

Thus it is the stuff of an obscure sect, established by a founder who was really just looking for a way to undermine the pushy denominations who he felt had too much influence in China.

Tell me, Evangelical, what's the evidence each or any of the seven churches in Revelation were organized under one set of elders/pastors/etc?

OBW · 09-02-2016, 01:06 PM

And there is some evidence that the letter to Ephesus (Paul's) did not bear a name in the beginning, but that it was understood to have been to Ephesus, or at least the churches in and surrounding it, so it was added later.

Cal · 09-02-2016, 01:45 PM

I recall a movie where Dustin Hoffman played an out-of-work actor. He went to an audition. After his reading the conversation went something like this:

Director: "Thank you. But we're looking for someone shorter."
Hoffman: "I can be shorter. I'm wearing lifts!"
Director: "We're looking for someone younger."
Hoffman: "I can be younger!"
Director: "We're looking for someone else."

The way the LCM treats any group which happens to actually meet as the church in a city before the LCM got there is similar:

LCM: "You need to meet as the church in the city."
Church: "We do!"
LCM: "You can't have a name."
Church: "We don't!"
LCM: "You have to receive all believers."
Church: "We do!"
LCM: "You have to have fellowship with the other churches."
Church: "We are willing to fellowship with any church."
LCM: "No, we mean our churches. And by fellowship we mean come to all our conferences, teach only our doctrines, sell only our materials and obey our headquarters in California."
Church: "Uh, we don't think we should have to do that."
LCM: "Then you are not a genuine church. "

The LCM then feels free to set up its own "city church" in that city, and ignore and discredit the other group, calling it a sect, etc, etc. This kind of thing has happened so many times it would make you puke.

The LCM local ground doctrine is nothing but a means to discredit all other groups and set itself up as the one true manifestation of God in a city. It is a means of control, exclusion and division, not unity.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, just because Jesus sent messages to seven churches designated by cities is no evidence that each of those churches were organized under one formal eldership in the manner the LCM insists upon, anymore than when Paul used the term "church" in Ephesians 1 he envisioned one eldership over that church..

As you well know, Nee puts restrictions on the size of a church being anything other than a city, based upon the Bible not formally (as in an entity with golden lampstands and an angel) referring to churches as anything less than a city.

The angels probably are the human leadership of each church as 'gotquestions' explains:
http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-s...evelation.html

The example also shows that there is one eldership/leadership per church.
There should not be one set of elders/pastors that rule over many churches.
That is not biblical and the LR does not believe in that or practice it.

aron · 09-02-2016, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I would agree that if someone says that with the thought of "my church, the one that is right while yours is wrong" then there is a problem with the term.

And I know a lot of people who say things like that. And I know some that would never say "my church" but they still refer to the one that they are meeting with while thinking exactly that.

Whether someone says "the church" or "my church" is neutral in itself. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical. It is in the intents of the heart saying it that it takes on any additional characterization.

And I already pointed out that there is a church in Ephesus, dismissed by the city clerk, because it was in danger of being called a riot (Acts 19:40). It was an 'ekklesia', but not one that Jesus would call "My ekklesia" per Matt 16:18.

Fact is, there were many 'ekklesia' on the ground at that time, both religious (Christian and non-Christian) and non-religious. To hold Nee's thesis together requires the narrowest of readings. Nee was perhaps abetted by ignorance, I don't know. .

OBW · 09-02-2016, 04:31 PM

I want someone to establish the whole idea of "ground" by reference only to things actually found in the Bible.

I find it quite interesting that the word "church" (well, actually the Greek or another local term) that meant "meeting." And we almost all agree that there is an alternate use of the term that means something besides just the meeting or assembly, but also the universal collection of all those who would constitute the members of the separate assemblies.

So we have a word that we claim for purposes of the Bible to have somewhat ambiguous meaning. It could refer only to an assembly. Or it could refer to everyone that is qualified to be in any of the assemblies. And maybe, depending on use, to also refer to all who qualify within less than all assemblies but more than a single assembly. (I do note that Paul referred to the recipients of another letter to be the "assemblies" in Galatia. No cities mentioned. Not sure there is ever a clear delineation of cities in that region.)

The point is that we have overlapping use of singular and plural to refer to the Christians in various places (as well as all Christians). I believe there is a general reference to the fact that the church grew. Not referring to any city or region (and I could be wrong and it was strictly in Jerusalem prior to the spread). There is ambiguity as to the coverage of the word when viewed from the standpoint of a defined boundary. The only truly meaningful thing about the word is that it is with reference to the gathering of the believers in Christ. Or alternately to the general condition of being among those who are believers in Christ. In effect, the NT refers to many believers either as believers, or as the church. And it also refers to distinct assemblies as the church.

It refers to some groups meeting in a house in or around a major city as the church in that house (Rome? maybe Laodicea?) and not by reference to any city. So finding some references to churches by reference to the city does not carry the weight of a clear prescription. Even the ambiguous one in Revelation.

And this whole thing of ground. Define it. Not by examples. Not by metaphors. No "it's like . . . ." Let the scripture define it without presumptive overlay. Without declaring that something with multiple meanings can only be understood with the one that gets to your position.

By the way. If I make reference to the church in Dallas, I would be referring to all those who claim to believe in Christ within the city. And within the county, and probably within the general area. At least the metropolitan area (the entire DFW area). I am not living in Dallas. But a letter by someone like Paul to the church Dallas would be understood to be to the called-out ones in the vicinity.

If we would not place such a harsh restriction on the nature of the church, why do we think that such an indirect thing as the introduction to a few letters is meant to do exactly that despite not even abiding by it in all cases?

Cal · 09-02-2016, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As you well know, Nee puts restrictions on the size of a church being anything other than a city, based upon the Bible not formally (as in an entity with golden lampstands and an angel) referring to churches as anything less than a city.

"Probably?" The things you've quoted have no authority.

I don't care what Nee says. I'm asking Where does the Bible say there is only one set of elders over every city church? There is not one set of elders over the universal church, and it is a church. There is not one set of leaders over "the church" mentioned in Acts 9:31 (see below). So why do you assume there is always one set of elders over every city church? Where is the evidence that the city church is the "practical church" with one set of leaders your doctrine says it is? There is no word in the Bible to make this claim clear. You've assumed it.

If there are house churches within the city church, they may have one leadership, simply because of the size. But there is no evidence that the city churches in the Bible always submitted to one set of leaders. None whatsoever. You've presumed it does. Your legalistic doctrine of locality by which you discount thousands of otherwise legitimate Christian churches around the world is based on a leap of faith and presumption.

"Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers." Acts 9:31

Please don't say this refers to the universal church, as Lee said. (One of his lamest claims.) The Bible is taking a subset of the Christians on earth, because there were likely Christians in other places as well, in a area which is in an area larger than a a city and calling it "the church." Did this church have one set of elders? How can it be "the church" then if its not the universal church or a city church? And if its neither and does not have one set of leaders, then why couldn't a city church have the same characteristics?

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I want someone to establish the whole idea of "ground" by reference only to things actually found in the Bible.

From Normal Christian Church Life, Ch. 5 "THE BASIS OF UNION AND DIVISION".

"The scriptural method of founding a church is simply by preaching the gospel; nothing further is necessary, or even permissible. If people hear the gospel and receive the Lord as their Savior, then they are a church; there is no need of any further procedure in order to become a church."

"If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place; there is no further step necessary in order to make him a constituent. No subsequent joining is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition."

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Probably?" The things you've quoted have no authority. I don't care what Nee says. I'm asking Where does the Bible say there is only one set of elders over every city church?

Hold on a minute. I never claimed "one set of leaders" doctrine and the LR does not believe that.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

(Moved from other thread).I have no problem with a group not caring to take a name, or meeting as the church in a city. What I have a problem with is when they say other groups are not the church because they don't meet that way. The Bible doesn't give us enough information or ground to do this. This is why the LCM is in error.

Other groups are not the church because they take a name other than Christ.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really understand logical errors? You have just presented us with a false dichotomy.

The dichotomy is false for two reasons. First, there are not "only city names" found in reference to churches, so your second option is invalid. And it is invalid because there are more than two options.

Want to rethink your understanding of logical errors?

There are at least three different references made — regions, cities, and houses (by the name of the owner of the house). And there is nothing that makes these names for the churches rather than designations of where it is that the particular Christians (which are the church — whether universal or local) are that are mentioned or written to. And whether it is or is not a name, it is clearly a description of what Christians are being referred to.

But there is nothing insisting that it is a name. That is an overlay that Nee and Lee insisted upon without anything more than a declaration that it is simply so. But it is not simply so. That is a misrepresentation of the available information.

Could it actually be true? It is possible. But it is also possible that it is simply a description (not a prescription). But even if it is a prescription, it will always be a description. But the fact that it is always a description does not in any way comment on whether it is or is not a prescription. So just saying the name of a city, region, or house does not prescribe anything. At least not without something decreeing it to be the way to address or name a church.

And while I can accept that there could be a truth that is not clearly prescribed, I would need to be assured that there is nothing that stands in opposition before I at least remain neutral on the subject. But there is the church in a house." It is referring to a church without mentioning a city. And it is within a letter that has been labeled as to a city, so if this house is within that city, then there is a serious question as to whether that is being referenced as a church (the church) different from the ones otherwise reading the letter. And if it is in a different city, why wasn't the city named rather than the house?

And this is not the only case. There are at least 2 or 3.

They stand in opposition to the notion that churches are designated by city. And you cannot invoke the city-church rule to dismiss them as meaning something else. That would be to use the unproved rule to dismiss evidence that it is not a valid rule. Circular reasoning. Begging the Question.
You are right. But if the underlying meaning of "church" is assembly, then the one I meet with is "mine" in a loose sense of the word. We use the word loosely in this day and age to mean something besides "something that belongs to me." We also use it to identify with something. "My church" simply means the one with which I meet. If not finding that phrase in the Bible makes that particular meaning bad or wrong, then it also does not mention so many other things. Lack of mention of something that is of no moral or spiritual consequence does not mean it is precluded.

Now I would agree that if someone says that with the thought of "my church, the one that is right while yours is wrong" then there is a problem with the term.

And I know a lot of people who say things like that. And I know some that would never say "my church" but they still refer to the one that they are meeting with while thinking exactly that.

Whether someone says "the church" or "my church" is neutral in itself. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical. It is in the intents of the heart saying it that it takes on any additional characterization.

In the New Testament, the singular word "church" is always used when referring to the "church in the city.."

There is no verse in the New Testament that says "churches in the city.."

It always says church, not churches. This proves that individual house meetings within the city are not churches.

The plural, churches, is used in reference to regions. This proves that a church is not greater than a city. There is no such thing as a "church of such and such region".

Christ Himself in Revelation refers to each church on a city basis, not regional or household basis.

It is logical or rational to appeal to the majority evidence and conclude "this is most likely thus".

It is irrational to appeal to minor aberrations to the rule as solid evidence to the majority.

Cal · 09-02-2016, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Other groups are not the church because they take a name other than Christ.

There is no teaching in the Bible that says you can't be the church if your group has a name. None whatsoever.

You are really reaching now, Evangelical. Let's stick the Bible, okay? Where does the Bible say you can't be the church if you have a "name."

Are you married? Does you wife have a first name? That name's not yours, yet she has it. Does that means she's unfaithful?

This is really bad teaching, Evangelical. Have you every really considered this stuff? Or do you just repeat it without thinking?

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:44 PM

If we want a logical and rational approach to this, we only need to count the number of times it refers to city, house or region as church or churches. The most likely answer will be the one that has the majority.

Here is the rational and logical evidence I get from doing word searches on Biblehub.com of the phrases "church in", "churches in", "church of", and "churches of". Then I count them whether they refer to a city, house or region.

Number of times the phrase "church in" refers to a city: 12
Number of times the phrase "church in" refers to a house: 3
Number of times the phrase "churches in" refers to a city: 0
Number of times the phrase "churches in" refers to a region: 9

Number of times the phrase "church of" refers to a city: 7
Number of times the phrase "church of" refers to a house: 0
Number of times the phrase "churches of" refers to a city: 0
Number of times the phrase "churches of" refers to a region: 5

Then we just add them:

Number of times the phrase "church of" or "church in" refers to a city: 19
Number of times the phrase "church of" or "church in" refers to a house: 3
Number of times the phrase "churches of" or "churches in" refers to a city: 0
Number of times the phrase "churches of" or "churches in" refers to a region: 14

So 19 out of 22 times, church refers to a city, or 86% (rounded).
3 times out of 22, church refers to a house, or 14% (rounded).

0 out of 14 times, churches refers to a city, or 0%.
14 out of 14 times, churches refers to a region, or 100%.

This shows that a church is much more likely to be a city than a house (86% compared to 14%). This evidence is against those churches (baptist, house churches etc) which claim a church size smaller than a city. The plural "churches" is never used in relation to a city, only regions.

It also shows that a church is never bigger than a city (100% to 0%). This rules out most denominations, which claim a size greater than a city.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 05:58 PM

[QUOTE=Igzy;50456]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Other groups are not the church because they take a name other than Christ.[/QUOTE

There is no teaching in the Bible that says you can't be the church if your group has a name. None whatsoever.

You are really reaching now, Evangelical. Let's stick the Bible, okay? Where does the Bible say you can't be the church if you have a "name."

Are you married? Does you wife have a first name? That name's not yours, yet she has it. Does that means she's unfaithful?

This is really bad teaching, Evangelical. Have you every really considered this stuff? Or do you just repeat it without thinking?

A full list of verses against denominating, is found here:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/division

The word "denominate" means to call or name.

There is a lot of biblical evidence against taking names.

Paul forbids taking names here:

1 Corinthians 1:12 "12Now 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.”

13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name"

Taking only Gods or Christ's name is found in many places:

2 Chronicles 7:14 "if my people, who are called by my name ....

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Acts 11:26 "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

When a person says "I was baptized as a Catholic", or "I am baptized as a Lutheran", they are taking another "husbands" name, which Paul condemns.

If your wife takes another surname other than yours, it means she is unfaithful.

Remember the church is a kind of "bride of Christ" and so taking another name except Christ is like your wife taking another man's surname.

I believe that God feels offended when His people take a name other than His name, just as you would be offended if your wife decided to take another man's name. God has feelings and gets jealous etc as the Bible says.

That is why God hates denominations. Denominations are a sin.

Ohio · 09-02-2016, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From Normal Christian Church Life, Ch. 5 "THE BASIS OF UNION AND DIVISION".

"The scriptural method of founding a church is simply by preaching the gospel; nothing further is necessary, or even permissible. If people hear the gospel and receive the Lord as their Savior, then they are a church; there is no need of any further procedure in order to become a church."

Then why did both Lee and the Blendeds always found a new church by migration?

Ohio · 09-02-2016, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Other groups are not the church because they take a name other than Christ.

So a ministry like LSM can take dozens of different names (and literally hundreds of website names) but a church cannot take a name?

How convenient! Not even Lee plays by his own rules. And his ministry ruled over the local churches.

Why can't other groups play by Lee's rules?

Did you ever consider that perhaps it was all this hypocrisy (think about the leaven of the Pharisees) that caused some of us to leave?

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why did both Lee and the Blendeds always found a new church by migration?

Because there is only denominations there. I think it was Nee or maybe it was Lee, who wrote about not having any place to bring new believers, as there are all denominations.

Anyone who wanted to practice the new Testament way, would have to start something new.

There is a principle of not putting new wine into old wine skins. Christ did not start a new type of synagogue. He called a group of believers out, and started something new.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So a ministry like LSM can take dozens of different names (and literally hundreds of website names) but a church cannot take a name?

How convenient! Not even Lee plays by his own rules. And his ministry ruled over the local churches.

Why can't other groups play by Lee's rules?

Did you ever consider that perhaps it was all this hypocrisy (think about the leaven of the Pharisees) that caused some of us to leave?

A ministry can take a name because it's a ministry. "ministry of Paul", etc. The ministry belongs to the man of that ministry.
Church cannot take a name because it's a church, it belongs to God. It's His wife.

The difference between ministry and church is also covered in Nee's books.

Ohio · 09-02-2016, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A ministry can take a name because it's a ministry. "ministry of Paul", etc. The ministry belongs to the man of that ministry.
Church cannot take a name because it's a church, it belongs to God. It's His wife.

The difference between ministry and church is also covered in Nee's books.

If the church is the Lord's, then why is it run by a ministry?

I really wish you would consider your answers in the light of scriptures and based on actual facts. I told you that nothing at LSM or the LC's matches Nee's books, yet you still reference them as if they are the Biblical standard and as if his books are actually practiced.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the church is the Lord's, then why is it run by a ministry?

I really wish you would consider your answers in the light of scriptures and based on actual facts. I told you that nothing at LSM or the LC's matches Nee's books, yet you still reference them as if they are the Biblical standard and as if his books are actually practiced.

It is not run by a ministry but by the eldership of each local church.:

http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html#question3
Where is your headquarters?
Each local church is autonomous in its administration. Therefore, there is no central headquarters. No particular local church should be regarded as the head church or leading church. On the contrary, all the local churches share the same standing before the Lord.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

(Moved from other thread).I have no problem with a group not caring to take a name, or meeting as the church in a city. What I have a problem with is when they say other groups are not the church because they don't meet that way. The Bible doesn't give us enough information or ground to do this. This is why the LCM is in error...

I'd like to see you try those 99.9% odds in Jesus's time. You might have said "99% of Judaism believe this so Jesus must be a heretic!"

The bible does not authorize us to call us by whatever name we like. I've given biblical evidence in this or another thread that this is so. The many references to having the name of Christ only, and not saying "I am of Paul" etc.

The church is the bride of Christ. It is as if you would say to your wife "honey, you have married me, but you can change your surname to anything you like that fits your personality or beliefs". Of course, the wife will take the name of her husband and none other.

Numerous autonomous house churches within a city cannot obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 1:10:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Is Paul writing this appeal to numerous independent house churches within the one city? No because we can see that 1 Corinthians 1:2 says "To the church of God in Corinth", not churches. Proving that Paul writes to one church in the city, not numerous house churches.

It follows that verse 10 is speaking against the very church model of "many believers divided into many different groups with names of their choosing", that you propose.

A set of local churches which are "united in mind and thought" is practicing 1 Corinthians 1:10.

There is nothing wrong with trying to accomplish that through the same bible version and books. In the New Testament period, the local churches were united by the ministry of Paul their founder, until they turned from him. But it is incorrect to say that Paul ruled over the churches.

A group of churches under an apostles ministry and teaching, united by the same mind and thought, is more biblical than a group of independent churches doing whatever pleases them and calling themselves however they like. And this achieved without the heirarchial papal structure of the institutional denominations.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I assume you started this thread as a response to my points about being a follower of Lee rather than Christ.

Look there is nothing wrong in principle with following a teacher or being influenced by one. The problem comes in when you don't feel the freedom to follow the leading of the Lord when it contradicts the teacher. I mentioned this specifically about the LCM trying to influence people not to leave the movement. When you believe that the Lord would never lead someone to lead the LCM the fact is you put following Lee and the LCM leaders above following Christ. Because whether you like or not the Lord could lead someone to leave your movement.

So if you are responding to me you missed my point.

No I just had the feeling to post about this, did not have anyone in mind in particular. Apologies if it felt that way to you. I was reflecting upon influences and the fact that on one is truly neutral and unbiased.

Here's the thing. We can leave a movement and a false church, but we can't leave the genuine church. To do so would be to deny the Lord. The Lord may lead someone to leave a movement. But He would not ask them to leave a genuine church. There is no example in the bible of the Lord asking them to leave anything that He has started.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously you are reading from the same "talking points" I used to speak from.

But as someone who has been both "in and out," things don't always appear as they seem.

Let me relay one "shocking development" I came across in ~2003. I was reading Nee's classic The Normal Christian Church Life with a few brothers. I could not believe my eyes! Page by page we were comparing Nee's early teachings with the practices of Witness Lee and now the Blended Brothers. Oh what a shocker! Nothing matched! Not even by a mile.

Could you believe that most Baptist denominations were closer to Nee's teachings than LSM was? And all along we had thought that Nee's book was a guide of sorts to LSM and the LC's.

Dear brother Evangelical, since you so value Watchman Nee's teachings and the Recovery, please go back and do the same. If you like, I could give you a guided tour, that is if I can retrieve my book, which I gave to an old friend.

That doesn't mean that what they started was not of the Lord and not genuine. Nor does it mean that what continues today in various localities is not genuine.

Luther wrote some pretty vile things against the Jews in his later life but no one is rejecting Sola Fide because of it. The Reformation was of the Lord and genuine.

If you do not believe that the LR was/is of the Lord, then please tell us which denominations or organizations are?

testallthings · 09-02-2016, 10:28 PM

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php

..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435

https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

or see the attached PDF file

micah6v8 · 09-02-2016, 10:57 PM

[QUOTE=Evangelical;50458]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

A full list of verses against denominating, is found here:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/division

The word "denominate" means to call or name.

There is a lot of biblical evidence against taking names.

Paul forbids taking names here:

1 Corinthians 1:12 "12Now 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.”

13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name"

Taking only Gods or Christ's name is found in many places:

2 Chronicles 7:14 "if my people, who are called by my name ....

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Acts 11:26 "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

When a person says "I was baptized as a Catholic", or "I am baptized as a Lutheran", they are taking another "husbands" name, which Paul condemns.

If your wife takes another surname other than yours, it means she is unfaithful.

Remember the church is a kind of "bride of Christ" and so taking another name except Christ is like your wife taking another man's surname.

I believe that God feels offended when His people take a name other than His name, just as you would be offended if your wife decided to take another man's name. God has feelings and gets jealous etc as the Bible says.

That is why God hates denominations. Denominations are a sin.

Hi, you have conflated denominations with division.

The verses in the link from openbible.info are about division, not denomination.

I agree that God hates division amongst His children.

To avoid any misunderstandings, when I say "denomination", I am adopting the dictionary meaning

"a religious group that has slightly different beliefs from other groups that share the same religion"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...h/denomination

(If you are using a different meaning of the word, do let me know).

Paul in Romans 14 allows room for slightly different beliefs within the Christians.

The names (e.g. Lutheran/Baptist/ Presbyterian) are short-form for describing these different groups with different beliefs.

Much like we use the terms (Poodle/Siberian Husky/Beagle) to describe different types of dogs.

Evangelical · 09-02-2016, 11:37 PM

[QUOTE=micah6v8;50475]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi, you have conflated denominations with division.

The verses in the link from openbible.info are about division, not denomination.

I agree that God hates division amongst His children.

To avoid any misunderstandings, when I say "denomination", I am adopting the dictionary meaning

"a religious group that has slightly different beliefs from other groups that share the same religion"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...h/denomination

(If you are using a different meaning of the word, do let me know).

Paul in Romans 14 allows room for slightly different beliefs within the Christians.

The names (e.g. Lutheran/Baptist/ Presbyterian) are short-form for describing these different groups with different beliefs.

Much like we use the terms (Poodle/Siberian Husky/Beagle) to describe different types of dogs.

As a person who used to think like you on this matter, I can tell you that it is much harder to argue that a denomination is not a division, than to just accept that it is, and then consider whether it is worth doing something about it or not. That was my journey, at least. That a denomination is a division or that a division led to a denomination, should be obvious. At least to me it is. A denomination is essentially an organized and institutionalized division.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a denomination is "a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations".

Baker's Dictionary of Theology, 1960, pp. 163, 164 says Denominationalism is "a class, kind, or sort designated by a specific name; ecclesiastically, a body or sect holding peculiar distinctives".

What denominations are (divisions), was evident to me well before I heard about Lee/Nee. So I will use some non-Lee/Nee sources that I would typically use as an evangelical Christian.
http://www.gotquestions.org/denomina...Christian.html
says

"the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican."

"The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word."

"There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. "

Regarding your appeal to Romans 14. In Romans 14, Paul is instructing the Romans, to accept all believers regardless of their persuasions about certain days etc.

How does this match your concept of "different kinds of Christians"? It doesn't really.

For example, 7th Day Adventist will not meet with other groups because they do not hold to the Sabbath.

Other groups will not meet with 7th Day Adventist because they do not worship on a Sunday. Both groups have contradicted Romans 14.

There is really no precedent in Scripture for Christians separating themselves based upon their beliefs. The only kind of separation is between Christians and non-Christians.

Denominations are not simply different groups with different beliefs. They are structured organizations built around something other than Christ. If they were only believers with different persuasions about days or foods, perhaps your dog analogy would make sense. But even so, Paul's words would instruct them to be in union and connected, when clearly they are not.

So in short, if denominations are divisions and God hates division, logically, God hates denominations.

The feeling that God has towards denominations is one of hatred.

This may sound harsh to some, but the reality is that God often permits things that He hates because people's hearts are hard.

Consider that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), yet
in Matthew 19:8 (NLT version) Jesus said:
"Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended."

So you see, God permits things that He hates. He is very patient and tolerant.

But if we would ask Him his true feeling about this, He will tell us that He hates it.

Some have wrongly concluded that the existence and even success of denominations is proof of God's blessing.

This is not so. God leaves things alone until judgement day. He gives everyone the opportunity to repent and come back to the truth.

Does hardness exist today in Christianity? Of course it does.

Many people are blinded by religion that tells them that God loves everyone and everything they decide to do will be OK. We can see that this false view of God has led numerous denominations to conclude that God is accepting of homosexual marriage, in the name of "love". Many will bless and approve homosexual civil unions or marriages, and you want to defend that? Their imagined God is not the true God of the Bible who does care deeply about these things, who has feelings and hates and gets angry and jealous over His children.

Evangelical · 09-03-2016, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by testallthings

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php

..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435

https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

or see the attached PDF file

It is good to quote the thoughts and practices of the early church by referencing a student of the teachings of John. It is not Scripture but it proves the thoughts and practices of the early church match somewhat match Nee's. Nee in his much reading probably drew these insights from similar sources.

The difficulty I have personally with these writings, is that they seemingly reflect the Orthodox or Catholic church model, or the clergy-laity system, by the use of the word "bishop". Afterall, the early church fathers are used to support their clergy-laity model, when we know from past history that this sort of arrangement was introduced later, along with the notion of paid priestly positions and "Christian tithing".

King James for example, made sure the King James Version was subservient to the views of the Church of England, namely, that the clergy-laity system was distinct, by using the term 'bishop' when 'elder' is a more appropriate term. A bishop, in the KJV, implies a ruler over elders. In many people's minds, these are the clergy with the funny hats and the shepherds crooks, and are also powerful pieces on a chess board.

So we should clarify this further, by finding what the real meaning of the word means:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/bishop/
Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Bishop
Bishop [N] [B] [S]
an overseer. In apostolic times, it is quite manifest that there was no difference as to order between bishops and elders or presbyters ( Acts 20:17-28 ; 1 Peter 5:1 1 Peter 5:2 ; Phil 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3 ). The term bishop is never once used to denote a different office from that of elder or presbyter. These different names are simply titles of the same office, "bishop" designating the function, namely, that of oversight, and "presbyter" the dignity appertaining to the office. Christ is figuratively called "the bishop [episcopos] of souls" ( 1 Peter 2:25 ).

So not only do we have historical fact regarding one church per city, the view that Nee held of one eldership or presbytery per city church is also fact.

There is a remaining question and one which is disputed - who has the (human) authority to appoint the elders? It was the apostles:
Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church ".

That it was the apostles Paul and Barnabas and not Peter, somewhat disproves the Papal claims about church structure and (human) authority in the early church.

But how did the apostle Paul choose?

We can see from Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

that it was by prayer and fasting, the Holy Spirit made clear who should be appointed. Then Paul and Barnabas laid hands on them and appointed them.

But who chose Paul and Barnabas for this task ? Acts 13:1-3 says that Paul and Barnabas themselves were chosen by the Holy Spirit through the prayers of the church at Antioch. Paul was one of the leading members of the church at Antioch. Yet as a leading one, Paul did not presume to go without the prayers, worship and fasting together with church prophets and teachers. The church at Antioch was the first Gentile church. Paul's ministry was chiefly to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

We can note that the appointments of elders in each church was God's, through the apostles, and the apostles sending were God's, through the church. The appointments were not by theological qualification or democratic election. The appointments were not Paul's own desires but God's.

Could it be any clearer that God has not authorized "just anyone" to start a church based upon their own thinking and feeling?,

Today in Christianity, when a young pastor achieves their theological qualification, no doubt they will undergo a period of training before being tasked to go out and start their own "church plant". But they are not planting a genuine church as per the model given in the book of Acts. They are planting a sect, a division, based upon human decision.
Such an appointment according to theological qualification, natural leadership ability or charisma is not how churches are planted according to the Bible.

Many Christians, claiming to know their Bible and follow it, are clear about God's will concerning loving God, loving neighbors, baptism, faith, repentance, and spreading the gospel based upon the plain words of the Bible.
Very few, regard the biblical church model and the biblical way churches are planted.
Is it any wonder that Christianity is in such a mess?

From my personal experience, my first church experience was a young pastor who was trying to make his new church plant work. He was fresh out of training and confident that he could do it and show his senior pastors his abilities. He fully believed he was called by God. The church was flourishing initially, there were claims of salvation's and healing's. There were words of prophecy, dreams and visions that the church would grow and flourish. Within a year that church died. I soon realized that what I experienced was not a real church. God's way is the only way we should take.

Some here have wondered why we focus so much on God's economy, dispensing etc. Why not just go out there and "do it"? Well stories of presumption like this young pastor is the reason why. Christ said to make disciples and build His church. But He never told us to do it without Him. We need to seek God's face to get the answer from Him.

Evangelical · 09-03-2016, 02:37 AM

Do we know the difference between regulation and legalism?

Knowing and practicing the difference makes the difference between gladly obeying God with relative ease and striving to obey God with gritted teeth.

The majority of Christian churches today express authority and obedience as this:
God has given us some rules to follow, teaches you what they are.
Tells you to try your best to follow them
Don't worry if you fail, repent, pick yourself up and try, try again.

But this doesn't work. There are many Christians stuck in this never ending cycle of religious zeal, trying to obey God, failing, repenting and trying again.
This cycle is propagated by churches which do not know the effective solution. They can only teach rules and laws without providing the solution for how to obey.
On the other hand there are Christian churches and groups which give up completely, they have no rules. They claim to experience or pursue the Spirit, yet anyone can do or behave whatever they feel like.

The problem is really a lack of law and obedience, but is this law obeyed by regulation by life, or is it legalism?.

Regulation is necessary for order in the church. Regulation prevents chaos. Regulation is godly and righteous. We can think of regulation as like a Voltage regulator, which is meant to keep the Voltage constant. Regulation will keep our Christian life constant, with fewer tries and failures, ups and downs. Regulation will also help us be regular in the sense of regular prayer times, regular bible study, and regularly attending church. We will no longer do this things only when we feel like it, or when we have obtained enough religious zeal.

regulation means

"a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority."
"the action or process of regulating or being regulated."

Christians are under authority. As Christians we are under God's authority, the Supreme authority. We are also under the authority God appoints over us in the church. We are under the governing authority God has put over us in society. Wives are under the authority of their husbands, and children their parents (Ephesians 5:23-33). Christ has authority over the Church. The apostles authority still remains today - whenever we heed the words of Paul in the Scriptures we are coming under his apostolic authority, and Christs.

But is that authority by regulation or legalism? Legalism, is the concept of "rule and conquer" by law, reward and punishment. It is about putting law above life. Legalism is hard to bear, because there is no life. Legalism is to try and fail, be rewarded or be punished. Many think that legalism is the way to be regulated, but this is not so. If we want to regulate electricity we cannot demand that it regulate itself, and then punish it when it does not. We need to install a "voltage regulator" to obtain a constant voltage.

Thankfully God has provided us with such a "voltage regulator". It is the law of the Spirit of life. The Christian has law, but this law is one of Spirit and life. Romans 8:2 "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death".

Genuine regulation is according to life, not rule of law. Regulation by life can be likened to the flow of blood in our bodies. Our hearts regulate our bodies by pumping blood. If our heart did not beat regularly, our bodily functions would be in chaos. If our heart was irregular, it brings chaos to the rest of our body, and brings anxiety to our minds. Our bodies do not do as they please, they are regulated by the flow of blood in our body.

In a similar way, the Holy Spirit as the spiritual "life blood" in us, regulates us individually. The Holy Spirit also, in the Body of Christ, regulates the church. The flow of the Spirit in every member is regulating them to obey the authorities. A genuine Spirit-led life is a regulated life, not one of many tries and failures or lawlessness.

Regulation by the Holy Spirit, the law of life, produces harmony, normality and freedom from chaos. It is pleasant and not so hard to bear. Even though the expected righteous requirements for Christians exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), for the Christian it is not a burden because it is achieved by the life in us. This is the genuine "freedom in Christ".

Just as an elephant does not need to try to be an elephant because it has an elephant's life, a Christian does not need to try to be a Christian because they have Christ's life. A Christian who tries to be a Christian without Christ's life, will ultimately fail. But with Christ's life it is possible to be victorious.

It is for this reason that it is worthwhile to practice to live and experience Christ's life, by calling the Lord's name, praying, reading the Word, fellowship, listening to and obeying Christ. Over time you will experience inward regulation by the Spirit of life.

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No I just had the feeling to post about this, did not have anyone in mind in particular. Apologies if it felt that way to you. I was reflecting upon influences and the fact that on one is truly neutral and unbiased.

Here's the thing. We can leave a movement and a false church, but we can't leave the genuine church. To do so would be to deny the Lord. The Lord may lead someone to leave a movement. But He would not ask them to leave a genuine church. There is no example in the bible of the Lord asking them to leave anything that He has started.

That's not true.

The Lord started worship in Israel through Moses, giving them the law on the mount. For a thousand years He reinforced what He had started by sending judges, kings, priests, and prophets. Then Jesus came in person to lead them out of what He personally started.

Why? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

The Lord led me to the local church. Then He led me to migrate to start two new churches. Meanwhile, something horrible happened in Anaheim at LSM under the leadership of WL and later the Blendeds.

What happened? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

Then the Lord led me out of what He had started.

Evangelical · 09-03-2016, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true.

The Lord started worship in Israel through Moses, giving them the law on the mount. For a thousand years He reinforced what He had started by sending judges, kings, priests, and prophets. Then Jesus came in person to lead them out of what He personally started.

Why? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

The Lord led me to the local church. Then He led me to migrate to start two new churches. Meanwhile, something horrible happened in Anaheim at LSM under the leadership of WL and later the Blendeds.

What happened? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

Then the Lord led me out of what He had started.

You are right, I was wrong. I did not think of the Old Testament to New Testament period.

aron · 09-03-2016, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because there is only denominations there. I think it was Nee or maybe it was Lee, who wrote about not having any place to bring new believers, as there are all denominations.

Anyone who wanted to practice the new Testament way, would have to start something new.

There is a principle of not putting new wine into old wine skins. Christ did not start a new type of synagogue. He called a group of believers out, and started something new.

Completely untrue. See Lee's derisive comments on extant "free groups", who were prevalent in the Jesus Movement era, when Lee was seeding the major USA cities with his followers. I don't have them at my fingertips but if you will look, you'll see what he said about those who didn't take a name, and met locally. If they weren't under his ministry he essentially cursed them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

LSM is the basis for fellowship. Where I live in Renton, the local church won't fellowship apart from the ministry? Would they fellowship with other assemblies? I'd venture to say not. To fellowship apart from LSM would require a locality to lose their uniqueness and be just like all other Christian assemblies. Thus the thread's title is appropriate, "always in the church, but not always in fellowship".

The LSM LC is the church of brethren that doesn't fellowship with the church of brethren that's not in fellowship with the brethren. They don't fellowship with them, because they're not in fellowship. Even though they're always in the church. They're just not in fellowship. It's so clear to me now.

aron · 09-03-2016, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I want someone to establish the whole idea of "ground" by reference only to things actually found in the Bible.

And this whole thing of ground. Define it. Not by examples. Not by metaphors. No "it's like . . . ." Let the scripture define it without presumptive overlay. Without declaring that something with multiple meanings can only be understood with the one that gets to your position.

If we would not place such a harsh restriction on the nature of the church, why do we think that such an indirect thing as the introduction to a few letters is meant to do exactly that despite not even abiding by it in all cases?

Amen to this. Not some, "It is like the moon over London". Hardly the way to start a new religious organization.

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are right, I was wrong. I did not think of the Old Testament to New Testament period.

Did not the Lord begin the church in Rome? Then look at all the Lord went through in Acts 21-28 to get Paul to Rome in order to further minister to them.

I was born into Romanism, the enlarged church of Rome. The Lord led me out of her the night I was saved.

This story has been repeated endless times in the past 2 millennia. The Lord starts something new in order to care for His children. Men love their power and corrupt the work of God. God leads them out into green pastures.

It's time for you too to repeat this story.

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That doesn't mean that what they started was not of the Lord and not genuine. Nor does it mean that what continues today in various localities is not genuine.

Luther wrote some pretty vile things against the Jews in his later life but no one is rejecting Sola Fide because of it. The Reformation was of the Lord and genuine.

If you do not believe that the LR was/is of the Lord, then please tell us which denominations or organizations are?

I agree with this. My family was a mix of Catholics (my father) and Lutherans (my mother.) I have studied both of their beginnings, both of their histories, and both of their current conditions.

I first contacted brothers and sisters in the LC's back in May 1973. I worked with several of them for the whole summer. The light of Jesus Himself shined on their faces. Just seeing them huddled for lunch on the steps convicted my dark Catholic heart. That was more than real. They had the freshness of a newborn babe! That had nothing to do with the teachings of Nee or Lee. It was all about Jesus!

What exists in the LC's today is nothing like that. My how things have changed! Perhaps there are pockets of scattered saints in diverse LC's which still bare a resemblance to the Lord. I have no way to know that, nor can I critique every gathering of Christians around the globe. (As both LSM and you apparently do on a regular basis.) I am not the judge of our Lord's own body, as LSM loves to be. I am here only because LSM hurts people.

NewManLiving · 09-03-2016, 05:53 AM

Our dear brother Evangelical forgets that the Church in Rome was once a so-called local church. She became corrupt and is now considered by many to be an abomination. So you see the Lord can remove a Lampstand. Regardless of how one views the doctrine of locality, the LSM local churches are strictly ministry or business churches that support the LSM organization. Those genuine local churches that disagree with the Blendeds, regardless of the reason are immediately censored. This is NOT the New Testament pattern. Paul did not run his business off the Churches. When all of Asia left him he did not run about trying to sue them and cut them off. He still called them churches. He never considered himself to be The Minister of the Age with his own system of churches orbiting around him. He did not disparage the ministries of the other Apostles. The list of differences goes on and on. By the way, our brother Paul had a very personal side to him as well; "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings being conformed to His death". Paul's goal was Christ alone - to forsake all for the prize.

Cal · 09-03-2016, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'd like to see you try those 99.9% odds in Jesus's time. You might have said "99% of Judaism believe this so Jesus must be a heretic!"

That's a specious argument. We are talking about Christians, the Church, the Body of Christ. 99.99% of them do not agree with you. The ratio of Christian theologians disagreeing with you is probably the same. It's pretty arrogant blowing all these people off.

Quote:

The bible does not authorize us to call us by whatever name we like. I've given biblical evidence in this or another thread that this is so. The many references to having the name of Christ only, and not saying "I am of Paul" etc.

Saying "I am of Paul" is not taking a name. It's identifying oneself with some person (even Christ if you read the whole passage!!) in a way that divides. (And if saying "I am of Paul" is categorically wrong, then the way the LCs identify with Witness Lee is of the same spirit.) If it was about taking a name then Paul wouldn't have rebuked those who said "I am of Christ." Clearly it was about having a divisive attitude in general. It wasn't about the name.

Quote:

The church is the bride of Christ. It is as if you would say to your wife "honey, you have married me, but you can change your surname to anything you like that fits your personality or beliefs". Of course, the wife will take the name of her husband and none other.

Your wife has a first name doesn't she? It's not your name. Your analogy doesn't work

Quote:

Numerous autonomous house churches within a city cannot obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 1:10:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

The fact that Paul is asking people to be united in mind and thought does not mean that the Church in Corinth was necessarily united under one set of elders.

Look at it this way. Don't you in the LCM expect the command above to extend across and between all LC churches? Don't you expect the churches themselves to be perfectly united in mind and thought with each other? Sure you do. The LC doctrine is that the churches should be identical, based on the (mistaken) idea that if all the lampstands in Rev 2-3 are "identical" then all the churches should be also. The LCM expects the whole "recovery" be perfectly united under "the ministry" of Lee, so much so that the leaders of the movement insist on "one publication." So if your churches with different leaders can be united in such a way, and you believe they should be, then why can't house churches in a city be united in such a way as well. There is no reason to believe they can't.

So there is no reason that house churches in a city, each with different leaders, cannot be united, and they don't have to united under one set of city leaders. It's interesting that Paul tells the believers to be perfectly united with each other. He never says be perfectly united with him (the apostle) or with the church leaders. Thus the exhortation is about getting along with each other, it isn't about following an agenda, and it isn't about being under one set of leaders.

So, again, you have failed to demonstrate that the city church is necessarily under one set of elders. Appeals to history don't work. I want to see it spelled out in the Bible. You can't do it. Now if your reckless assumptions only affected you it would be one thing, but they affect others. Many, many Christians have been damaged by the LCM's insistence that their leaders are the leaders every Christian in a city needs to submit to. Many of them have passed through this message board. We've seen them. We've witnessed the damage and lived it.

Cal · 09-03-2016, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A ministry can take a name because it's a ministry. "ministry of Paul", etc. The ministry belongs to the man of that ministry.
Church cannot take a name because it's a church, it belongs to God. It's His wife.

There is nothing in the Bible that specifies this. There is nothing in the Bible that says a Church can't take a name because it is Christ's wife. This is extra-biblical teaching invented by Nee.

Why on the one had do you claim to be for the Bible, and then on the other hand you pull out this stuff which the Bible does not command?

Cal · 09-03-2016, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hold on a minute. I never claimed "one set of leaders" doctrine and the LR does not believe that.

Sure it does. The LCM believes there is one church per city and each church has one set of coordinated elders, usually with one lead elder.

This leads to the following problem. What if there are two groups in the city and each claims to be the city church with its own set of elders and each set of elders is convinced the other set should submit to them. How does this get worked out?

I'll tell you how the LCM handles it. They go with the elders loyal to LSM. Now there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Bible that suggests that a church's validity as a church can be based on its loyalty to some ministry, even if that ministry is considered of an apostle. Paul appealed to churches to follow him, but he never suggested that if they didn't he would come in and set up a new church in that city with people loyal to him in charge. NEVER. Yet this is EXACTLY what LSM does, and has done it time and time again.

Of course, ideally the groups would learn to cooperate. But there is nothing suggesting that either of them has to relinquish the reins of what they feel the Lord has commissioned them with to another group of leaders. This is where the legalistic city church model of the LCM breaks down. Its simplistic thinking says "We meet as the church in the city, so we are." But if another group meets as a church in the city, why aren't they it too? Why do LCM churches always give themselves the nod?

This has happened around the world. It happened in Toronto. It happened in Columbus, Ohio. It's happening in San Francisco where last I heard there were four churches meeting as the church there. Now, which one is the real McCoy? The LSM-loyal LCM has a tricky way of dealing with this. They say "Aha, but genuine churches have fellowship with the other churches. So they trump up some charges against the groups not loyal to LSM that they don't have proper fellowship with other churches (meaning the ones they approve of) and voila! they've invalidated them.

So the bottom line with LSM-loyal LCM is they think they have the inside track on deciding which churches are valid and which aren't. They can validate or invalidate any church based solely on it's loyalty to them. It's a neat trick. But it's complete baloney. There is no precedent in the Bible for a movement of churches having the final say on what are churches and what aren't. And it's easy to see why the Lord would never allow such a thing.

Which brings us to the ultimate error of the LCM. Somewhere along the line they decided they could and were supposed to determine what is a church and what isn't. But there is not one instance in the NT where anyone makes a negative determination that some group of Christians is not a church. The Bible does not give us enough information to make such a grave determination about a group. We are not wise enough to do so. The LCM thinks it is, but this is self-deception. One would think, having made such a grave error time and again, they would at least look at the fruit of it, see the damage they inflict by their history of playing their bullying king-of-the-hill in cities all over the world, using the courts to wrest the legal name of their churches "without a name" away from groups they don't like, and other dirty tricks, all backed and supported by LSM. But they don't.

But run-of-the-mill LCMers are ignorant of these things. Why? Their leaders keep these ugly shenanigans hidden and tell the members they shouldn't be curious about them, and don't dwell in negativity, etc. Uh-huh.

By their fruits you shall know them. Go look at the fruit, Evangelical.

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Completely untrue. See Lee's derisive comments on extant "free groups", who were prevalent in the Jesus Movement era, when Lee was seeding the major USA cities with his followers. I don't have them at my fingertips but if you will look, you'll see what he said about those who didn't take a name, and met locally. If they weren't under his ministry he essentially cursed them.

What Lee said about Free Groups concerning the Jesus People movement, which was a genuine move of the Spirit of God in the US, was an absolute abomination. It was a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Lee likened them all to the incestuous children of Lot, Moab and Amon, conceived while drunk in some Dead Sea cave. Take a look at the Genesis Life Study on Lot, probably #54 or so. It will make you sick.

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sure it does. The LCM believes there is one church per city and each church has one set of coordinated elders, usually with one lead elder.

This leads to the following problem. What if there are two groups in the city and each claims to be the city church with its own set of elders and each set of elders is convinced the other set should submit to them. How does this get worked out?

I'll tell you how the LCM handles it. They go with the elders loyal to LSM.

This is absolutely true. Recently in Columbus and Mansfield, Ohio, LSM worked with their newly appointed loyal, yet childish, "elders" to sue the church in court for property, bank accounts, and their "name." That's right, their name!

Evangelical sounds to me like an idealist in some distant LC who has only a sanitized book version of his church's history. He reminds me of Martin Luther, the devout Catholic monk, who was the staunchest Roman defender in all of Germany, that is until he made his first pilgrimage to Rome, and saw the cesspool of corruption first hand.

Cal · 09-03-2016, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We can note that the appointments of elders in each church was God's, through the apostles, and the apostles sending were God's, through the church. The appointments were not by theological qualification or democratic election. The appointments were not Paul's own desires but God's.

Could it be any clearer that God has not authorized "just anyone" to start a church based upon their own thinking and feeling?,

But who decides who are the apostles? And the question remains are there any apostles in this day? The Bible says plainly in 1 Cor 12:12* that real apostles have a "sign" which includes the ability to do miracles and wonders. Do you know anyone who has such a sign? I don't know of any. So therefore there are no apostles of the kind in the first generation of Christians; and Nee and Lee weren't apostles, because they didn't have the sign.

So since there are no apostles, does that mean churches cannot be established? Such a conclusion is silly.

So actually "just anyone" potentially can start a church. Because God is going to commission someone to do it, and none of us can judge whether God has commissioned someone else in that way or not. We, you, can't know if their decision to start a church was just "their own thinking and feeling." All we can do is look at the fruit, and that's all we should do.

* "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." NASB

Cal · 09-03-2016, 07:58 AM

Has anyone ever thought it is interesting that in all Paul's letters to city churches, and even Jesus's messages to city churches, that the names of the leaders are never specified? Paul surely knew who were leaders in the churches he planted. So why doesn't he ever address them directly by name? Even further, in all of Paul's writings to churches is to the whole church in general, he never writes in a way where he is talking to leaders. And unless you believe Hebrews (13:17) was written by Paul, there is no place where he instructs members to obey leaders, or really talks about them much at all. Outside of the pastoral epistles (Timothy I II, Titus), which were written to other apostles, he doesn't address leadership much, and even there he does not speak of obedience to leaders.

Peter writes about leaders, but he focuses on the humility and servant attitude of leaders. He doesn't instruct members about obedience to leaders. (1 Pet 5:2-3).

One would think that if city churches were in principle to be led by one group of leaders, in the model of the LCM, that this leadership aspect would be very crucial and that Paul would address it clearly in his letters to the city churches. But he doesn't. He never does. In fact, Paul talks more about obeying secular leaders (Rom 13) than he does about obeying church leaders!

The whole picture is something very different that what is painted by the LCM. In the LCM everything revolves around submitting to the leaders. Paul emphasizes unity, but he doesn't cast things in a way that suggest the unity is around the leaders. It's always around Christ. And leaders are always portrayed as servants, not lords.

Finally, why does Paul not address the book of Romans to the church in Rome? Why does he address it to "all who are in Rome." Why does he leave out reference to the church in Rome but then refers later to "the church that meets in their house" (16:5) obviously referring to a subset of all the Christians in Rome?

Ohio · 09-03-2016, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

But who decides who are the apostles? And the question remains are there any apostles in this day?

Based on Titus 1.5 and Acts 14.23, both Nee and Lee have stated that these were proof texts that only apostles could appoint elders, and that there was only one set of elders in every church.

In other places, Nee and Lee have stated that the apostles were "sent ones" who preached the gospel, and then raised up churches, much as Paul did. I never saw this happen. In Ohio, Titus Chu would send out brothers to startup new churches, but he alone was "the" apostle, and they alone were the elders. Lee did much the same in his area, as did Benson Philips in Texas, and other leaders in their regions. Thus we declared that we alone followed the N.T. pattern prescribed by Nee in TNCCL. Not exactly.

But what happens when "the" apostle and these appointed elders die? Thus Nee's definitive model, carefully patterned (supposedly) after the N.T., can only operate for one generation! Now what do we do? What if we have no "apostle" who alone can appoint elders?

Well we should do what healthy congregations have done for centuries. They look for men according to the patterns in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They look for men of God approved both by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20.28) and by the saints (Acts 16.2). Note that adamant unwavering loyalty to a distant publishing house / headquarters is/was never a consideration, unless of course it is the Catholic church or one of her dying daughters.

The appoint of elders which I have witnessed was far too often self-serving to headquarters. In this regard the so-called "apostle," whether in Anaheim or Cleveland, actually operated as a Bishop, which of course we completely condemned as hierarchical. Thus an obvious hypocrisy which none of us could identify. A Bishop was one who oversaw churches, trained elders, moved and removed elders, dealt with problems, gave mandatory conferences and trainings, and the like. Was that not exactly what Titus Chu and Benson Philips were doing for decades. Now I'm not saying this is wrong.

But let's call a spade a spade, an apostle an apostle, and a bishop a bishop.

Cal · 09-03-2016, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But let's call a spade a spade, an apostle an apostle, and a bishop a bishop.

One wise principle is operate in a way that does the least damage. Nee did question whether apostles existed, but concluded that since the NT had apostles, then we must have them now, even though he really did not follow the NT pattern of identifying an apostle, which included their being able to perform miracles (1 Cor 12:12) (I'm of the thought that apostles at the level of the first generation no longer exist, 1 Cor 12:12 helps confirm this belief.)

So Nee thought it would be better to act like someone was an apostle, that to consider that there were none. Now it doesn't take a genius to realize how this can go wrong. I don't want someone operating on me who is not a surgeon, and I don't want someone assuming to be an apostle who cannot be confirmed as one. But Nee was so zealous to get back to the early church he cut corners. He gambled that is was good enough that people assumed to be apostles, whether they were or not. This did a lot of damage and continues to do so.

Freedom · 09-03-2016, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The majority of Christian churches today express authority and obedience as this:
God has given us some rules to follow, teaches you what they are.
Tells you to try your best to follow them
Don't worry if you fail, repent, pick yourself up and try, try again.
...
On the other hand there are Christian churches and groups which give up completely, they have no rules. They claim to experience or pursue the Spirit, yet anyone can do or behave whatever they feel like.

Evangelical, could you please provide some LC context to this topic? I'm assuming the tie-in is what you refer to as "law of the Spirit of life."

Secondly (and please don't take this as a sarcastic remark), but do you care to explain how you arrived at the conclusion from the portion of your post I quoted? Is this your observation? If not, do you have data to back this up? Or is this just your assumption about what various Christian groups are like?

Freedom · 09-03-2016, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As a person who used to think like you on this matter, I can tell you that it is much harder to argue that a denomination is not a division, than to just accept that it is, and then consider whether it is worth doing something about it or not. That was my journey, at least. That a denomination is a division or that a division led to a denomination, should be obvious. At least to me it is. A denomination is essentially an organized and institutionalized division.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a denomination is "a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations".

My approach to the topic of division is with the understanding that it is both inevitable and unavoidable at a broad level. Of course, the Bible speaks strongly against division, so I think with such an understanding, any concern over division needs to refocus on the scope of the actual problem. Lets look again at 1 Cor 1:10
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Notice here that I bolded among you. Who is the among you that Paul was referring to? I think that we all could agree that this was the local assembly at Corinth to whom Paul addressed his letter. So Paul was concerned with internal division/factions that were taking place.

I don't know about anyone else, but in consideration of the context of what Paul said here, I think the takeaway here is that we are primarily responsible for getting along with the Christians with whom we have regular fellowship. That seems completely reasonable to me. But some like Nee/Lee have used verses like this not as a reminder to look at themselves, but as a reason to judge and criticize other groups.

This is the way that I think about it: as Christians, we need fellowship with other Christians. This is one of the primary roles of the local assembly, is to provide us with other Christians whom we can fellowship with. These are the people that we want to particularly focus on getting along with. It's difficult, but not impossible. If we can't even get along with those we are in regular fellowship with, then there is a big problem.

When the scope is broadened and someone comes along to claim that group A must get along with group B, then problems will easily arise. Group A has different needs than group B, so that discrepancy alone is enough to create problems. Things like doctrine make matters worse. Of course, the resulting 'division' might concern some people, but is this really the kind of division the Bible wants us to avoid? I don't think so. It seems that in the context of a broader fellowship, the emphasis is commonality. At the end of Colossians, Paul urges his epistle be read among the Laodiceans, and likewise his epistle to the Laodiceans be read among the Colossians. It could be inferred that some commonality existed that would make it an advisable thing to suggest.

Evangelical · 09-03-2016, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Evangelical, could you please provide some LC context to this topic? I'm assuming the tie-in is what you refer to as "law of the Spirit of life."

Secondly (and please don't take this as a sarcastic remark), but do you care to explain how you arrived at the conclusion from the portion of your post I quoted? Is this your observation? If not, do you have data to back this up? Or is this just your assumption about what various Christian groups are like?

By LC context I take this to mean you asking me to quote Nee/Lee about this? If so it is strange for you to ask for that, if you are supposed to be following the Bible only and are free from Nee/Lee's teachings. But since you are asking, yes it would be connected somehow with the teaching about the law of the Spirit of life.

The ones that "have no rules" are the ones such as these:
http://charismissional.com/how-to-get-stoned-on-jesus/
Would the Holy Spirit ever instruct a Christian to "get stoned on Jesus"? If not, this indicates they are not led by the Spirit despite their claims and "spiritual" experiences.

Regarding the majority of Christian churches, yes I have some personal experience about this. But I feel it is better to consider the numbers. Whether someone has done an academic study on this or not, I have not looked. But I have done my own approximate evaluation to see whether my claim about "the majority" might be correct.

I take the list of Christian denominational member numbers from Wikipedia, found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ber_of_members

I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism. How do I know that Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican teach that we should obey God by following rules, that is, legalism? This is from my experience and the experiences of others that I know. This is also often a belief of Protestantism that these denominations, particularly Catholic, are "works based".

Going by the numbers in millions, we have Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican at
1200+300+86+85 = 1671 million.
Protestant are 800 million.

If we assume that all of those Protestants believe in obeying God by following the Spirit (or the law of the Spirit, as Law/Nee might say), and if we assume that all of those Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican obey God by legalism, then
the numbers show that:
1671/(1671+800) = 67% of denominational members try to obey God by following rules.
To me, 67% is a majority and therefore my statement that the majority of churches obey God by not following the Spirit, is factual.

This simple analysis I have done overlooks a few things. Firstly, not all Catholics, Orthodox or Anglican are legalistic. There are charismatic movements within these denominations that stress the importance of the Spirit. There are some individual priests or members who know the Spirit-led life. Secondly, not all Protestants are following the Spirit. I have attended baptist or Presbyterian churches which are very legalistic. Some, are quite sarcastic towards the worship practices and beliefs of the Pentecostals and charismatics, and their focus on the Spirit. In some churches you would rarely hear the word Spirit mentioned, and some do not believe the Spirit is a person, but rather a mysterious force or power.

So if you disagree with my view that the majority of denominations are not obeying God by following the Spirit, you are free to provide your own analysis or evaluation and disagree.

But I think it would be harder for you to justify that the majority of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican are following the Spirit, than it is for me to justify that they are not. It may be easy for a Roman Catholic to claim that they are following the Spirit, in their own way they are convinced this is true. But I think it would be particularly hard for a Protestant to admit or acknowledge that the majority of Roman Catholics follow the Spirit, would it not? To do so would be for a Protestant to infer that the Roman Catholics are led by God to offer prayers to Mary, venerate and pray to saints, and idolatry.

In my experience, the only denominations which make reference to or preach about the power of the Spirit or the inward dwelling of the Spirit for our ability to obey God, are the charismatics/pentecostals, and the Lord's Recovery, and probably certain house churches as well (I am only familiar with major denominations), depending upon their denominational persuasion.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's a specious argument. We are talking about Christians, the Church, the Body of Christ. 99.99% of them do not agree with you. The ratio of Christian theologians disagreeing with you is probably the same. It's pretty arrogant blowing all these people off.

haha I am amused because you as not a Catholic (I presume), are appealing to the majority. Who is in the Body of Christ according to you? Does it include the Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Which together make up the majority of Christians. If so then these majority Christians disagree with you, if you are a protestant. And there is a hefty sized group of Catholic and Orthodox theologians as well. If you want to follow the majority, then you should take heed to practice your words, and become a Catholic. And is it not "pretty arrogant" for you as a non-Catholic to "blow all those Catholics off" ?

If you would claim that the Body of Christ does not include Catholic and Orthodox, well I should expect to see some fruitful discussions about that in this forum,as you would appear to be not accepting of all denominations, as others have claimed of myself or the local churches.

Your arguments are not logical at all. Another person here has asked me to justify my use of the term "the majority of churches". I have done that, by the numbers.
I wonder if you can justify your claim of 99.99%, I highly doubt it.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Our dear brother Evangelical forgets that the Church in Rome was once a so-called local church. She became corrupt and is now considered by many to be an abomination. So you see the Lord can remove a Lampstand. Regardless of how one views the doctrine of locality, the LSM local churches are strictly ministry or business churches that support the LSM organization. Those genuine local churches that disagree with the Blendeds, regardless of the reason are immediately censored. This is NOT the New Testament pattern. Paul did not run his business off the Churches. When all of Asia left him he did not run about trying to sue them and cut them off. He still called them churches. He never considered himself to be The Minister of the Age with his own system of churches orbiting around him. He did not disparage the ministries of the other Apostles. The list of differences goes on and on. By the way, our brother Paul had a very personal side to him as well; "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings being conformed to His death". Paul's goal was Christ alone - to forsake all for the prize.

Thankyou for your insights NewManLiving. I agree with everything you say about LSM running churches as a business. Paul did not run a business off his ministry. Are you claiming that the newly started LSM churches around the world meeting as a locality do not have a lampstand, simply because they are connected to the LSM?

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I want someone to establish the whole idea of "ground" by reference only to things actually found in the Bible.

I find it quite interesting that the word "church" (well, actually the Greek or another local term) that meant "meeting." And we almost all agree that there is an alternate use of the term that means something besides just the meeting or assembly, but also the universal collection of all those who would constitute the members of the separate assemblies.

So we have a word that we claim for purposes of the Bible to have somewhat ambiguous meaning. It could refer only to an assembly. Or it could refer to everyone that is qualified to be in any of the assemblies. And maybe, depending on use, to also refer to all who qualify within less than all assemblies but more than a single assembly. (I do note that Paul referred to the recipients of another letter to be the "assemblies" in Galatia. No cities mentioned. Not sure there is ever a clear delineation of cities in that region.)

The point is that we have overlapping use of singular and plural to refer to the Christians in various places (as well as all Christians). I believe there is a general reference to the fact that the church grew. Not referring to any city or region (and I could be wrong and it was strictly in Jerusalem prior to the spread). There is ambiguity as to the coverage of the word when viewed from the standpoint of a defined boundary. The only truly meaningful thing about the word is that it is with reference to the gathering of the believers in Christ. Or alternately to the general condition of being among those who are believers in Christ. In effect, the NT refers to many believers either as believers, or as the church. And it also refers to distinct assemblies as the church.

It refers to some groups meeting in a house in or around a major city as the church in that house (Rome? maybe Laodicea?) and not by reference to any city. So finding some references to churches by reference to the city does not carry the weight of a clear prescription. Even the ambiguous one in Revelation.

And this whole thing of ground. Define it. Not by examples. Not by metaphors. No "it's like . . . ." Let the scripture define it without presumptive overlay. Without declaring that something with multiple meanings can only be understood with the one that gets to your position.

By the way. If I make reference to the church in Dallas, I would be referring to all those who claim to believe in Christ within the city. And within the county, and probably within the general area. At least the metropolitan area (the entire DFW area). I am not living in Dallas. But a letter by someone like Paul to the church Dallas would be understood to be to the called-out ones in the vicinity.

If we would not place such a harsh restriction on the nature of the church, why do we think that such an indirect thing as the introduction to a few letters is meant to do exactly that despite not even abiding by it in all cases?

Ground is another name for foundation. The foundation of the church is the same foundation as a Christian's - it is Christ. What or who else could it be?

The ground or foundation of the church is none other than the crucified Christ (closest reference I can find is Matt 16:18).

If we take it to mean simply the region or boundary of a city, this is the wrong understanding. When Christ looks down upon a city and sees all His believers in that city, that is His one local church.

The "ground of locality" is to leave the denominations and have only Christ as the ground in whatever locality you reside. This means I will only take the name of Christ as my identify, and none other. If we fellowship in a denomination we realize we do not belong to it, Christ is still our ground. The ground of a denomination is whatever organization or institution that denomination represents. The Roman Catholic church for example, in London, has the Papacy as its ground, not Christ. The RC church in New York, also has the Papacy as its ground, not Christ. The principle of "no other name" other than Christ applies here.

This is the meaning prescribed by Nee (Normal Christian Church Life):

Let us note well that the ground of our receiving anyone into the church is that the Lord has already received that one

If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place; there is no further step necessary in order to make him a constituent. No subsequent joining is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition.

So we can see that a believer is automatically on the "ground of locality" after becoming a believer. This is the basis upon which we receive any believer in the Lord. If a person has Christ, they are automatically in the local church.

Nee writes further:
If, before recognizing a believer as a member of the church, we insist that he join us, or that he resign his connection elsewhere, then “our church” is decidedly not one of the churches of God.

Since a believer in Christ is already a member of the local church, he cannot join another and cannot leave it.

NewManLiving · 09-04-2016, 04:56 AM

The Lord is the judge. He gives only one reason and that is to leave our first love. That could apply to any assembly. Many believe that the seven churches represent the general condition of the church at the end of this age. My statement was meant to generate discussion. One could argue that the Lord did not say this to the church in Thyatira. Removal of a Lampstand appears to be a matter of first love. On the other hand establishing of a Lampstand has nothing to do with LSM or any other organization. That is also determined by the Lord, and more than likely the determining factor is first love.

aron · 09-04-2016, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many Christians, claiming to know their Bible and follow it, are clear about God's will concerning loving God, loving neighbors, baptism, faith, repentance, and spreading the gospel based upon the plain words of the Bible.

Very few, regard the biblical church model and the biblical way churches are planted.
Is it any wonder that Christianity is in such a mess?

"Most Christians know Christ as their Savior, but few know Him as their life". Does this sound familiar? You have a generic statement, as if you could look into every human heart and suss out what they experientially know. Or did you do a poll, with 1,000 randomly chosen Christians, and give them a multiple-choice test?

"Many Christians are this.... but few are this". It is hard to get through a single WL message without this refrain. You base your criticism of others upon ignorant assumptions, and then use this criticism to separate yourself. Create a straw man, then your solution is what? Not the straw man! Well, hurrah.

The local church is so far from any 'biblical church model' as anyone could ever imagine. No love, no freedom of the spirit, no respect for anyone as valid in their own right, only how they are related to the Ascended Master. Constant criticism of "Christianity". Zero curiosity as to what the Bible says, only what the Great Man told you it is supposed to mean. On and on. What a horrible place! Many nice and dear Christians, yes. But the place is a spiritual charnel house, full of dead men's bones.

Cal · 09-04-2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

haha I am amused because you as not a Catholic (I presume), are appealing to the majority. Who is in the Body of Christ according to you? Does it include the Roman Catholics and Orthodox?
Your arguments are not logical at all. Another person here has asked me to justify my use of the term "the majority of churches". I have done that, by the numbers.
I wonder if you can justify your claim of 99.99%, I highly doubt it.

Even if you limit the ratio to Evangelical Christians the principle would still hold.

There are an estimated 300 million evangelicals in the world. If you add in charismatics the number is more than twice as big, but let's stick to the smaller number. How many LCers are there in the world? I heard 50,000, but let's say 100,000 just because we can.

So 100,000 / 300,000,000 % = .033%
100% - .03% = 99.97%

So even by this calculation skewed way in the favor of LCM, you make up only .03% of the world's Evangelical population. If you use the real numbers it comes to less than that.

That's just Christians. What about theologians? Well, how many theologians does the LCM have. None qualified, really. But by their standards, just two. Nee and Lee. But let's say 10, just to make it less of a blowout than it's going to be. Now how many evangelical theologians in the world? Well, I couldn't find any numbers, but let's make it conservative and say 10,000. How many of those believe in the "local ground" teaching? Probably none. So again, in a calculation skewed way in favor of the LCM, they comprise a tiny portion of the population, less than .001%.

So my estimates were not that illogical after all.

So for the LCM to be right about "the local ground" over 99% of evangelical Christians have to be wrong. Now what kind of people go around thinking they are right and over 99% of the rest of the relevant population is wrong? I think they call those kinds of people "nuts."

The fact is the odds that the LCM is right about "the local ground" and everyone else is wrong is about as likely as that Ayn Rand was right about philosophy and everyone else is wrong. There is also a tiny enclave of zealous, devoted Rand followers (Students of Objectivism, aka nuts) who think she and she alone had the correct insights into the nature of reality.

Sadly, there is always a small minority of people who for whatever reason need to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Cal · 09-04-2016, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The "ground of locality" is to leave the denominations and have only Christ as the ground in whatever locality you reside. This means I will only take the name of Christ as my identify, and none other. If we fellowship in a denomination we realize we do not belong to it, Christ is still our ground. The ground of a denomination is whatever organization or institution that denomination represents. The Roman Catholic church for example, in London, has the Papacy as its ground, not Christ. The RC church in New York, also has the Papacy as its ground, not Christ. The principle of "no other name" other than Christ applies here.

Yes, we've heard all this already. But the existence of house churches in the NT shows that you can be part of the city church and part of a house church also. Just like you can be part of the universal church and part of the city church.

There is nothing that says if you belong to a city church (and as you said you cannot not belong to it, because it is a reality) that you cannot also belong to a house church. And the Bible gives good evidence that this was often the case. Paul addresses the church in the house and it doesn't make sense in context that these churches were the same as the city church. That right there blows your theory up.

If you can belong to a city church and a house church, and the Bible shows you can, then it should be fine to belong to the city church and a community church. The fact that a community church has a name is irrelevant. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits this. Names are for identification, not division.

Again, these principles you cite are not biblical. They are Nee's concoctions.

Quote:

Since a believer in Christ is already a member of the local church, he cannot join another and cannot leave it.

As I pointed out, this is a false assumption that the Bible contradicts.

What bugs me about LCMers is they talk about God hating division and yet some of them are some of the most divisive people on earth. They are the classic case of people trying to remove splinters from other's eyes while having logs in there own. They think not being divisive means following a few outward rules, "Don't take a name, meet as the church in the city and, voila!, you are not divisive! Forget about how you sued other Christians, bad-mouthed them, called them 'poor pitiful Christianity' and generally treated then as invalid."

Cal · 09-04-2016, 08:05 AM

I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does?

What if I live right outside the boundaries of the city. If the city church is a reality in the black and white way the LCM sees it, when I leave the city am I no longer a part of that church? Say I live between two adjacent cities but in neither one, which church am I a part of in reality? If I live in the country and meet with a group of Christians can we not be a church? And finally, do you think God really worries about any of this? Or is rather speaking of the church in the city just a way He references his people as a group relevant to the region in question?

This seems to suggest that the black and white legalism the LCM insists upon with the city church is untenable. Yes, in one sense there is one church in a city, just like, in a sense, there is one church on Earth, and in the same sense there was one church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in Acts 9:31. But the Bible also shows that within these city churches there were smaller churches. The Bible never uses the term the "churches in" a city specifically. But it doesn't have to. It does indicate that a smaller church within a city church can exist. And if one can exist then it follows that more than one can.

I'm not of the school than believes that a "church" is necessarily a practical assembly. The Bible uses the term both in a practical and more abstract way. "Church" in Ephesians 1-3 is a more abstract usage of the word. I believe that the church in a city is also a more abstract usage, or can be. There is no compelling reason to believe that the church in the city need be organized "practically" under one eldership as the LCM says, nor that it cannot be comprised of smaller more practical churches, house churches, community churches, etc, which can have names for identification.

Meeting separately is not necessarily indicative of division. Even the large LCM churches have multiple meeting places. And the Bible never says that a church having a name indicates division. Divisiveness is a heart matter. You can have no name and insist you are doing everything right and still be divisive, as we've clearly seen with you-know-who.

Freedom · 09-04-2016, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if you disagree with my view that the majority of denominations are not obeying God by following the Spirit, you are free to provide your own analysis or evaluation and disagree.

But I think it would be harder for you to justify that the majority of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican are following the Spirit, than it is for me to justify that they are not. It may be easy for a Roman Catholic to claim that they are following the Spirit, in their own way they are convinced this is true. But I think it would be particularly hard for a Protestant to admit or acknowledge that the majority of Roman Catholics follow the Spirit, would it not? To do so would be for a Protestant to infer that the Roman Catholics are led by God to offer prayers to Mary, venerate and pray to saints, and idolatry.

It seems you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. My goal wasn't to agree or disagree with you, it was to determine how you arrived at your conclusions. I think you answered that question for me with this statement: I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In my experience, the only denominations which make reference to or preach about the power of the Spirit or the inward dwelling of the Spirit for our ability to obey God, are the charismatics/pentecostals, and the Lord's Recovery, and probably certain house churches as well (I am only familiar with major denominations), depending upon their denominational persuasion.

The reason that I asked about LC context, is because just as I suspected, you have singled out the LC to say that they are one of the few groups who talk about a certain matter. Given my LC experience, when you speak of groups "practicing legalism", I would readily put the LC in that category. In my opinion, this attempt to distinguish regulation and legalism is hodgepodge.

In the LC, they have a lot of unspoken rules - things like how to dress, etc. All of which could be categorized as legalism. If a member were to call it such, they could expect to be corrected and told how we all need to be 'regulated'. In other words, it is at the whim of leaders to determine what is 'regulation' and what is 'legalism'.

ZNPaaneah · 09-04-2016, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ground is another name for foundation. The foundation of the church is the same foundation as a Christian's - it is Christ. What or who else could it be?

The ground or foundation of the church is none other than the crucified Christ (closest reference I can find is Matt 16:18).

You lost me. I thought you were talking about the doctrine of "The Ground of the Church" as taught by Witness Lee:

The ground of the church is not the foundation of the church. The foundation of the church is Christ. “Another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). The ground is completely different from the foundation. The foundation is a basic and integral part of the construction of a building, whereas the ground is not. The ground is a piece of land, called the site, upon which the foundation is laid. It is not part of the construction but simply a lot upon which the construction is placed. We must not mistake the ground for the foundation or the foundation for the ground. They are two vital, yet distinct entities for the construction of a building. Although the foundation may be deeply embedded in the ground, it is still distinct and separate from it. The ground is the standing on which the foundation is laid. (The Ground of the Church, Witness Lee, Chapter 1, Section 1)

In Witness Lee's doctrine Ground and Foundation are distinct and different.

DistantStar · 09-04-2016, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The foundation of the church is the same foundation as a Christian's - it is Christ. What or who else could it be?

You said it, not us. The foundation of the church is the same foundation as a Christian's - it is Christ. Precisely. This is the core point which the LC denomination misses. The majority of major denominations also view Christ as the foundation of the church. So we are then agreed that other denominations have the same foundation as the LC? That they are just as true as the LC?

Or are you going to revoke your statement?

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You said it, not us. The foundation of the church is the same foundation as a Christian's - it is Christ. Precisely. This is the core point which the LC denomination misses. The majority of major denominations also view Christ as the foundation of the church. So we are then agreed that other denominations have the same foundation as the LC? That they are just as true as the LC?

Or are you going to revoke your statement?

You agree, yet seemingly do not understand what it means in practice. If someone tells me that they are married and yet I know they are sleeping in different places and are seeing different people, they are claiming something which was true once but is no longer true. Similarly the genuine moves of God over the centuries were in God and for God and yet now we see they are "sleeping in different places and seeing different people". You see, every denomination claims to be started by Christ, and many were, authentic, as someone else pointed out here, that the Roman Catholic church ,was once the genuine local church in Rome, but they don't identified themselves by Christ today. They are corrupted by many things. You may read the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homosexuality

Consider, whose name do they bear?
Lutheran - founded on teachings of Luther.
Roman Catholicism - founded on teachings of the Vatican in Rome.
Anglicanism - founded on the teachings of the Anglo (English) Monarchy empire (a religio-political mixture).

You ask them, what sort of Christian are you? They will say "I am a Lutheran Christian", "I am a Catholic", "I am a Baptist".

The correct answer to the question "what sort of Christian are you?" is to say, "there are not different types of Christians. There are only Christians, and non-Christians."

To fail to see that there are not different types of Christians, is to fail to see that every Christian has the same Spirit, Christ and Father.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does?..

We stand on the truth of one Christ, for this reason we must reject many different religions and ways to God.

Similarly, there is only one church, period. It stops there. If we stand on this truth alone we cannot support denominations. There is no "only one church but divided into many denominations that do not talk to each other and who some of which claim to be true church or others who claim to be right way".

There is also no "only one church but divided between those who follow denominations and those that do not". This is nondenominationalism which is also a division.

If you travel from one city to another you are in the same church.
You are always in the same church wherever you go. Only if Christ leaves you

Ohio · 09-04-2016, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

My approach to the topic of division is with the understanding that it is both inevitable and unavoidable at a broad level. Of course, the Bible speaks strongly against division, so I think with such an understanding, any concern over division needs to refocus on the scope of the actual problem. Lets look again at 1 Cor 1:10
[COLOR=Blue]Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Notice here that I bolded among you. Who is the among you that Paul was referring to? I think that we all could agree that this was the local assembly at Corinth to whom Paul addressed his letter. So Paul was concerned with internal division/factions that were taking place.

I don't know about anyone else, but in consideration of the context of what Paul said here, I think the takeaway here is that we are primarily responsible for getting along with the Christians with whom we have regular fellowship. That seems completely reasonable to me. But some like Nee/Lee have used verses like this not as a reminder to look at themselves, but as a reason to judge and criticize other groups.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have seen many a brother in the GLA who could not get along with any local brothers, yet would boldly declare that they were "one with Brother Lee." They could pick up any of Lee's books and use them to judge the local elders and the whole church.

Now ... how could anybody in their right mind tell me that these characters were not saying they were of Lee? What do they need to do, make a sandwich sign board with the words "I am of Lee" front and back, while repeating these same words as they walked in circles? How is this not being divisive? How is this not being "of men" and fleshly?

Yet these same dear brothers could call LSM and be promoted as heroes. LSM will give them a special place of honor at their trainings and conferences. You want to make a name for yourself in a far off land? Just claim that you are the only brother in town "on the ground, faithful to THE ministry."

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You lost me. I thought you were talking about the doctrine of "The Ground of the Church" as taught by Witness Lee:

The ground of the church is not the foundation of the church. The foundation of the church is Christ. “Another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). The ground is completely different from the foundation. The foundation is a basic and integral part of the construction of a building, whereas the ground is not. The ground is a piece of land, called the site, upon which the foundation is laid. It is not part of the construction but simply a lot upon which the construction is placed. We must not mistake the ground for the foundation or the foundation for the ground. They are two vital, yet distinct entities for the construction of a building. Although the foundation may be deeply embedded in the ground, it is still distinct and separate from it. The ground is the standing on which the foundation is laid. (The Ground of the Church, Witness Lee, Chapter 1, Section 1)

In Witness Lee's doctrine Ground and Foundation are distinct and different.

Thankyou for pointing this out. There is a difference and two matters here which must agree for a church to be a genuine local church.

I will try and explain the difference between ground and foundation, in the way that Lee uses it.

If we are living in the same city, then the basis upon which we meet together (our ground), is the fact that we have both believed in Christ (our foundation), and the fact that we live in the same city (our locality).

It is because of our foundation (Christ) that we are always in the church. The foundation of every believer in a locality is Christ, whether inside or outside of a denomination..

But if you attend the "Ground of Roman Catholicism" and I do not attend any such denomination/division ,then clearly you are on the ground of Roman Catholicism, and I am on the ground of locality.

It is because of our ground not being the locality (the fact that we live in the same area), that we are not always in fellowship.

Every believer in these denominations has Christ as their foundation.
But not every believer in these denominations has locality as their ground.

An assembly of people, which meet outside of a denomination as "the church in New York", and yet does not believe in Christ, does not have the "foundation of Christ". These have the ground of locality but do not have the foundation of Christ.

An assembly of people, who believe in Christ and yet meet inside a denomination as "the Church of England", does not have the "ground of locality".

Both the ground of locality and the foundation of Christ must exist for it to be a genuine local church assembly.

The ground being the locality is a way to say the ground is not a religious organization or any doctrine (such as tongue-speaking) or person, but just that the believers are dwelling in a particular location and meeting together on that basis alone. If they meet together not based upon any organization, doctrine or any other thing than the fact they live in the same city and believe in the Lord, they are building on another foundation.

Example: The Church of England, has spread itself far and wide around the world. Wherever you go in whatever city, you will experience the same kind of order of service. What is the ground? It is the practice and teaching of the Church of England. They may preach Christ, to be sure, they may be founded on Christ and claim their roots in Him, but their ground is the Church of England. If a person comes to the Church of England with a Lutheran order of service, they will get upset. Because their ground is not the locality but their denomination.

The Roman Catholic church, has spread itself far and wide around the world. Wherever you go in whatever city, you will experience the same kind of order of service. What is the ground? It is the practice and teaching of the Vatican.

How can there be a Church of Rome in the city of New York? According to the Bible there cannot be. In New York there is only the church in New York.
This is what it means by the "ground of locality".

We are talking about on what basis people meet together. Is it because they live in the same city and all have Christ as their foundation? Or is it because they all believe in tongue speaking, or baptism by immersion, or the Nicene Creed, or the Anglican order of service?

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have seen many a brother in the GLA who could not get along with any local brothers, yet would boldly declare that they were "one with Brother Lee." They could pick up any of Lee's books and use them to judge the local elders and the whole church.

Now ... how could anybody in their right mind tell me that these characters were not saying they were of Lee? What do they need to do, make a sandwich sign board with the words "I am of Lee" front and back, while repeating these same words as they walked in circles? How is this not being divisive? How is this not being "of men" and fleshly?

Yet these same dear brothers could call LSM and be promoted as heroes. LSM will give them a special place of honor at their trainings and conferences. You want to make a name for yourself in a far off land? Just claim that you are the only brother in town "on the ground, faithful to THE ministry."

Agree wholeheartedly as well.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, we've heard all this already. But the existence of house churches in the NT shows that you can be part of the city church and part of a house church also.

The ground of locality, prohibits a house church, if that house church is meeting because it is a "house church". There is a "house church" movement, which tries to create a church by a model of people meeting in houses. Well, believers could meet in a park, and because of that the "house church model" is a divisive one.

If it is meeting on the ground of locality, then it is a genuine local church. This means, if it is meeting because they are believers that love the Lord and live near each other, and meeting in a house is the most practical way to do that, then that is a genuine local church on the ground of locality.

Many of the churches in the Lord's Recovery are exactly that ,house churches comprising believers who love the Lord and desire to meet together because they live in the same locality.

If they are believers in the Lord, that are travelling from one city to another city, just to fellowship in the house church because it is a house, or because its teaching is good, then that is a sect.

Does the house church accept and fellowship with the other house church on the nearby street?

Does the house church consider itself to be separate from the other believers in their locality?

I use the term "house church" to facilitate discussion, but begrudgingly, knowing that a Christian or church should never be defined by the type of building it meets in.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, we've heard all this already. But the existence of house churches in the NT shows that you can be part of the city church and part of a house church also. Just like you can be part of the universal church and part of the city church...

Here is the situation:
The divided ones (denominations) are pretending they are not divided, they are "one body". Because they meet together occasionally and shake hands and smile, some of you are deceived to believe this.

The ones calling out the divisions and stressing unity, back to Christ, back to the ground of locality, are called out as being divisive.

For some reason some of you here find it is acceptable to bad mouth the lord's recovery and claim they are being divisive, but it is not acceptable to state that the denominations are divisive which they clearly already are and have been for hundreds of years.

Who has the log and splinter my friend?

Some genuine believers in the Lord moved to the USA, yet I don't see the denominations welcoming them? Instead, books were published slandering them and saying they were a cult. These publishers, though being Christians, apparently, were rightly sued.

Others have since come out and defended them as not being a cult, after a long period of research and trying to reconcile misunderstandings.

They think being divisive is not to meet based upon having Christ as our foundation and the region in which we live as our locality. Denominations were upset with that because it touched their precious organized, institutionalized and long-standing divisions and traditions.

09-04-2016, 07:09 PM

Evangelical!
"An assembly of people, which meet outside of a denomination as "the church in New York", and yet does not believe in Christ, does not have the "foundation of Christ". These have the ground of locality but do not have the foundation of Christ. "
The church in NY does not believe in Christ? You mean: does not believe in Lee?

Freedom · 09-04-2016, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The divided ones (denominations) are pretending they are not divided, they are "one body". Because they meet together occasionally and shake hands and smile, some of you are deceived to believe this.

Division exists in all of us. When various groups are able to overcome certain obstacles, that is good thing. It's much better than a group who chooses to isolate itself from all other groups and condemn them as "poor, poor Christianity" week after week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ones calling out the divisions and stressing unity, back to Christ, back to the ground of locality, are called out as being divisive.

They are divisive. They refuse to interact with other groups claiming that such other groups are not on the "proper ground". If the LC were so concerned for unity, then it would be the first group in line to work together with other groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For some reason some of you here find it is acceptable to bad mouth the lord's recovery and claim they are being divisive, but it is not acceptable to state that the denominations are divisive which they clearly already are and have been for hundreds of years.

Speaking for myself, I have stated my views on division as I believe the Bible addresses it. There is no intention to "bad mouth" anyone, but I do call things out as I see them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Others have since come out and defended them as not being a cult, after a long period of research and trying to reconcile misunderstandings.

There weren't any misunderstandings. Those who originally expressed concerns did so with genuine concern for what WL was teaching. WL failed to clarify his views and to tone down his rhetoric. Even the CRI would admit that WL could have clarified himself better.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Division exists in all of us. When various groups are able to overcome certain obstacles, that is good thing. It's much better than a group who chooses to isolate itself from all other groups and condemn them as "poor, poor Christianity" week after week.

They are divisive. They refuse to interact with other groups claiming that such other groups are not on the "proper ground". If the LC were so concerned for unity, then it would be the first group in line to work together with other groups.

Speaking for myself, I have stated my views on division as I believe the Bible addresses it. There is no intention to "bad mouth" anyone, but I do call things out as I see them.

There weren't any misunderstandings. Those who originally expressed concerns did so with genuine concern for what WL was teaching. WL failed to clarify his views and to tone down his rhetoric. Even the CRI would admit that WL could have clarified himself better.

Suppose I have two cups full of water, and I want to bring them closer together, I can do that. But they are still two cups of water.

If I want only one cup of water, I must get a third cup twice the size, and pour both of those cups into that third cup.

So we cannot simply bring closer different groups, we must "pour" them all into one cup.

This non-LSM affiliated site says there was misunderstandings, being largely cultural:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Witness-...al-church.html

" Thus began a long and strange saga of charges, counter-charges, lawsuits, strife, and misunderstandings between the Local Church movement and the evangelical community"

The article also says it was largely a cultural problem.

That is a balanced view of the situation. Your view of the situation is not balanced.

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Evangelical!
"An assembly of people, which meet outside of a denomination as "the church in New York", and yet does not believe in Christ, does not have the "foundation of Christ". These have the ground of locality but do not have the foundation of Christ. "
The church in NY does not believe in Christ? You mean: does not believe in Lee?

Did I say Christ or Lee? Can you read?

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Lord is the judge. He gives only one reason and that is to leave our first love. That could apply to any assembly. Many believe that the seven churches represent the general condition of the church at the end of this age. My statement was meant to generate discussion. One could argue that the Lord did not say this to the church in Thyatira. Removal of a Lampstand appears to be a matter of first love. On the other hand establishing of a Lampstand has nothing to do with LSM or any other organization. That is also determined by the Lord, and more than likely the determining factor is first love.

I like this website's layout of what "leaving first love" means:
http://iblp.org/questions/what-are-s...first-love-god

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. My goal wasn't to agree or disagree with you, it was to determine how you arrived at your conclusions. I think you answered that question for me with this statement: I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism...

The reason that I asked about LC context, is because just as I suspected, you have singled out the LC to say that they are one of the few groups who talk about a certain matter. Given my LC experience, when you speak of groups "practicing legalism", I would readily put the LC in that category. In my opinion, this attempt to distinguish regulation and legalism is hodgepodge.

Including the LC into those who "practice legalism" only confirms my statement about "the majority of Christian churches" even more!

Or, you could just evaluate what I wrote by the Bible alone. Note, that I never quoted or referenced Nee or Lee once in what I said. You asked me to provide a LC context, not me.

You seem to desire to focus on the LC.

Are you sure you are not in an anti-LC cult dear Freedom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they have a lot of unspoken rules - things like how to dress, etc. All of which could be categorized as legalism. If a member were to call it such, they could expect to be corrected and told how we all need to be 'regulated'. In other words, it is at the whim of leaders to determine what is 'regulation' and what is 'legalism'.

How does a leader enforce "unspoken" and "unwritten" rules?

Hmm
Not being late for meetings.
Dressing appropriately.
Parking your car appropriately within the lines.
Lining up for meals in an orderly fashion.
Acting with consideration of others and respecting other's property .
These are unwritten and unspoken rules in society.

you are really "splitting hairs" on this one.

If you want to see real legalism in action,go to any Roman Catholic, or Church of England or Lutheran church, and see how they ritually pray the same thing out of the same book every Sunday. The
Priest says virtually the same thing according to ritual every time. There is a rote prayer for any problem you might have. Are you willing to call them out for being a cult for that?

Evangelical · 09-04-2016, 09:57 PM

Every Sunday, in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England and (I believe, I could be wrong) Lutheran churches.
The church priest conducts a fixed and pre-arranged order of service. One of which the majority of speaking is done by the priest, with their assistance, and perhaps the reading of a bible verse or two by a member of the congregation and church announcements.

The congregation reads the same things out of the same one book every Sunday (minor variations to be sure). They hardly use the Bible, only the words written in the prayer book.
There is no prophesying, or freedom for any member to interrupt the service so as to speak their mind or share what the Lord has told them.

Everyone speaks in rote unison, sits or stands according to the priestly directions. Only the priest can handle the bread and wine, to do so normally requires extensive theological training. If you disagree with anything, or want to change anything, there is very little you can do.

Contrast that with the LC, where there is no order of service or prayer book there are no priests, any believer can handle the bread and wine. Anyone can speak at any time.

Supposedly the LC is a cult, and yet it allows more freedoms than in the other churches that you say are not cults? Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

ZNPaaneah · 09-05-2016, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

This is one of the key burdens of this forum, to answer this question, at least the part about the LC. “Carry Up My Bones From Here” attempts to summarize this answer based on the book of James and quotes Nigel Tomes, Don Rutledge, Steve Isitt, John Ingalls, Ohio, Witness Lee, Kerry Robichaux, Ed Marks, and others.

The burden of James is to turn back those who have wandered from the truth.

Those who have wandered from the truth look like “the twelve tribes in the dispersion”. In the Old Covenant we had 12 tribes, but not in the New Covenant. What is it that makes the LC, RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran distinct? The Old Testament teachings they hold onto.

For example, the Ground of the Church doctrine which you are so strong to champion is an Old Testament teaching. Cut out everything from the Old Testament and there is no teaching. You have letters addressed to a church in Ephesus, or to the churches of Galatia, or to the church in their house, or to “the twelve tribes in the dispersion”. No one is saying that James is teaching us that we need to be “tribes in a dispersion” but somehow you infer a very strict teaching that condemns all other believers beside yourself because Paul addressed a letter to "the church in Ephesus". This is a commandment of men.

Why do you ignore the very clear commandments of the New Testament? We only have two: love God with our whole heart and love our neighbor as ourself. According to James once you start judging your brother because he is not “on the proper ground” you are a judge of these two New Testament commandments.

If you really have some great insight into the New Testament that will help everyone then show us with the meekness of wisdom in works of faith. If you want to change the age, if you want to bring in the kingdom it is not going to be by being “a hearer of the word only” but rather by being “a doer of the word”. Any group, whether it is the LC or any other one that is a hearer only has wandered from the truth.

When we appear before the Lord’s judgement seat we are not going to be judged based on whether or not we were faithful to Witness Lee’s “ground of the church” doctrine. We will be judged based on whether or not we were faithful to the two commandments Jesus gave us to keep.

Tribes are characterized by individual leaders and doctrines that make them distinct. I infer that this picture of 12 tribes in dispersion, people who are believers in the New Testament but holding onto their Old Testament distinctions, are like dry bones scattered in the valley. Every single bone in my body is distinct from all other bones. If you knit them together in life, then you will have one body, but take away that life and you have scattered bones. The basis of our oneness is what the Lord did on the cross, not the boundaries of a city purchased by people in the world.

ZNPaaneah · 09-05-2016, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I will try and explain the difference between ground and foundation, in the way that Lee uses it.

Wow, I must be really slow because you have completely lost me again. Please have patience with me, but here is what threw me.

1. Are you aware that the "Church in New York City" is not called the The Church in New York City but rather "The Christian Fellowship Center"? This is because it is illegal in New York law to call themselves the "Church in New York". Jesus is above all rule and authority, He has been given as Head over all to the church, but they are more than willing to throw out the ground of the church doctrine and take the name "Christian Fellowship Center". Why? Money. They do not need to incorporate to own a meeting hall, but if they are going to keep their tax exempt status and they must. This would be a small price to pay when you compare it those in Rome who were willing to die rather than sign a "Genius" pledge to the Emperor.

2. It seems to me that you are saying that we must worship in Jerusalem, and I thought that Jesus said that the hour now is that we will worship in Spirit and Truth? Jesus doesn't argue with the woman at the well, she is correct when she says that this rule is imposed on them by the Jews, but His point is that in the New Testament this all changes. Why isn't this "change" incorporated in the ground of the church doctrine?

3. Are we having fellowship? How can this be, we are all in different cities? Today there are millions of Christians involved with their fellowship online, in cyberspace. There is no contradiction to the Lord's word "wherever two or three are gathered together in my name" or with His word that the "hour now is when the true worshippers will worship in spirit and truth". But there is a very big contradiction with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's assertion that we are limited by time and space to meet in one city at one time. That is patently false.

4. The ground that I am standing on in my worship of the Lord was purchased with Jesus blood. Are you saying he purchased Queens, NY? If so why do people in NY vote for Trump or Clinton to be president? There are no elections in the kingdom, Jesus is Lord. But the world does not yet recognize that. The worldly cities are still under the dominion of Satan, which is why he could tempt Jesus with them. When Jesus died on the cross He paid the price for us, not for the worldly cities. The "ground" that He owns is not the worldly cities, it is the ground He purchased with His blood.

5. If Jesus purchased New York City with his blood on the Cross then why did the boundaries change when NY and Brooklyn merged? This is not trivial, city boundaries, somewhere in the world, change frequently, maybe every week the boundaries are changing somewhere. So the heavenly kingdom gets jerked around every time some city board comes together to purchase or sell land? Why?

6. The whole thing gets so complicated, I was in Taipei and we had 23 meeting halls, 23 different glasses of water, yet that was fine. Why is the Lord's word "wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst" insufficient? My point is that the real issue of the ground of the church is that "the apostle" gets to appoint and fire elders. Who is this apostle? Witness Lee. As long as the elders of a congregation report to him and send LSM money they will negotiate on every other point. Can't use the name "church in NYC", no problem. You need to merge saints who live in Odessa and Midland into one church, no problem. You want to move people from one church to another at the whim of the "apostle" no problem (i.e. they don't belong to a church, they belong to the apostle). Home meetings are not genuine churches unless the elders submit to Witness Lee, in which case they are -- I was in Odessa for a year while we met in homes before we moved into a meeting hall). The ground of the church doctrine deals with divisions, until of course it creates them. I have a letter where LSM refused to come to the congregation I meet with and present their ministry to them. The two congregations meet within a mile of each other, one has a meeting hall with less than 400 regular attendees (what is commonly referred to as "the church in NYC" but is legally referred to as "The Christian Fellowship Center", the other where I meet has more than 1,000 regular attendees, they go by the name of place where they meet, but not "Church in NY" as that is illegal).

7. I accept your analogy of the 23 glasses of water and that a gathering of believers (a church) is comparable to a large vessel that holds these believers. What I don't understand is Witness Lee's doctrine of the ground of the church. I get that we should be diligent to keep the oneness, I just don't get how Witness Lee's doctrine helps. To me, the vessel that holds us all together is in Ephesians:

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

I will meet with anyone who embraces these seven ones. On the other hand if you tell me that the basis of your oneness is that Witness Lee and Watchman Nee are "Ministers of the Age" after the likeness of Moses then I reject that as "another Jesus". If you tell me that the basis of your oneness is that "man becomes God" then I reject that as an idol which is contrary to "one God". As a result receiving Witness Lee's ministry is "eating things sacrificed unto idols". If you tell me that you have to meet according to Witness Lee's Old Testament teaching of "the ground of the church" then I ask who are you? You have made yourself a judge of the law to love God and love your neighbor, not a doer of the law.

DistantStar · 09-05-2016, 07:12 AM

You are setting up a strawman. You are assuming that cults are what those sects are.

Then you proceed to show how the LC denomination is not like them, and therefore not a cult.

Perhaps it's the other away around, don't you think? Perhaps the "evil" rituals of the Catholics and Orthodox and Lutheran churches are normal while the LC is the cult.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not saying they are or are not. I'm just questioning your reasoning here.

Besides, compare yourself with normal evangelicals. We are all here (as far as I know) not Catholics or Orthodox Christians. None of us ascribe to their rituals. The debate is not between Catholocism and the LC (although I see few differences). The debate is between normal evangelical churches and the LC.

This is a red herring designed to divert us into defending things we don't believe in.

ZNPaaneah · 09-05-2016, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You are setting up a strawman. You are assuming that cults are what those sects are.

Personally I dislike the word cult. The definition of a cult includes the early church. It is not a New Testament term and the utter vagueness of this term authors confusion.

The New Testament refers to false prophet, false teacher, antichrists, and the fruit of a false teacher.

The New Testament goes into great detail about what a false teacher is (for example hypocrite) so I consider all those other terms to be included in these.

The New Testament also tells us that teachers will receive "stricter judgement". We are told not to judge our brother, and judging that a "Lutheran" is in a "cult" is that judgement. However, we are told to take heed to the doctrine that we walk in. So then judging false teachers and heretical doctrines is prudence, and is something the NT directs us to do.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How ironic.

Lee claimed that his "high peaks" were the consummation of the recovery of lost truths in scripture. Now Evangelical wants me to accept that lots of Christians have been believing this all along!

How can you positively reference degraded Christianity which your leader regularly condemned as "hopeless and helpless?"

Because it is not one of those matters that became degraded.
It became forgotten about, in the Western church, as one of the links I provided shows.
Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

Cal · 09-05-2016, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ground of locality, prohibits a house church,

Well, if the ground of locality prohibits a house church then it can't be biblical because the NT allows a house church. "House church" doesn't mean it's meeting on the ground of the house, it mean its meeting in a house.

Quote:

The divided ones (denominations) are pretending they are not divided, they are "one body".

You are are also assuming as part of your argument that denominations are divisive. You haven't proven this either. You haven't proven that the Bible prohibits a church having a name. You haven't defined the term divisive.

Here's the problem with this discussion, Evangelical. You are assuming true what you have not demonstrated in good faith. The ground of locality teaching is what is in question here, and you keep arguing for it by assuming its true. That's circular reasoning, and it's invalid.

You are proceeding as if everyone is supposed to agree with your definitions of everything, as if you are the only one who sees the light and everyone else is just stupid. Judging from what I've seen, you are not smart enough for that to be true. So take the "I'm the authority" attitude down a notch and show some humility. Because the Bible talks a lot more about humility than being on the "proper ground," and if you are not up to the former you darn sure shouldn't be lecturing anyone about the latter.

As I said, it's highly unlikely that you are correct on this teaching and 99.99% of other evangelical Christians, living now and down through history, are and have been wrong about it. It's pretty brazen to just come along and start making declarations of what you think the Bible really says without creating a very good case AND approaching others with a bit of humility, considering the understandable likeliness that they might disagree with you.

You've (and Nee and the rest) have done neither. There are legitimate and very good questions and exceptions about the "ground of locality" teaching. They are being put forth here. You are brushing them aside. You need to address those honestly and stop making this circular argument where you assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.

The Bible mentions city churches. It also mentions house churches. Yet you say house churches are invalid. Now, what is a thinking person who hasn't turned his freedom of thought over to Nee and Lee to think about this? He probably is going to expect you to make a very good case to explain the discrepancies. But you haven't done that. Neither have you explained how denominations are categorically divisive. You just keep saying they are as if if you say it enough people will give into it. That's not an explanation.

Here's the thing. Nee is not the authority here. Neither is his book "The Normal Christian Church Life." Go back to the pure word of the Bible and make your argument from it, not from what he superimposed on it.

Look at the fruit of the "local ground" teaching. Look how its ultimate result has been either (1) groups fighting over who is the real church in the city or (2) an entrenched, ossified group of leaders ruling over all the Christians in the city with no hope of recovery. It doesn't work. Human nature will eventually find a way to muck up any legalistic system. That is why we need to walk by the Spirit and have the freedom to follow Him, and that's why you need to honor that in others and stop pretending you have the lowdown on church. You don't. None of us do. It's a mystery. That's what the Bible says.

God needs a way for his seekers to go on, and the only way is to allow them to gather in churches as they feel led by him, without the oppression of some group insisting that it alone is the true church in the city while beating everyone else over the head claiming they are divisive.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I must be really slow because you have completely lost me again. Please have patience with me, but here is what threw me.
1. Are you aware that the "Church in New York City" is not called the The Church in New York City but rather "The Christian Fellowship Center"? This is because it is illegal in New York law to call themselves the "Church in New York"....

About the locality, I bring your attention to the logical and rational argument I made from the Bible about useage of the word church and churches in the Bible. This shows majority useage for the word church in connection with city, not house, is 86% compared to 14%. Found in Post #40 by myself in this thread:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

I also bring your attention to post #51 by "testallthings" here:
"It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city."
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

It is not Witness Lee's OT teaching, it is Nee's and is also based upon Jesus's words in the New Testament (not old) in Revelation that addresses only 7 churches in Revelation, one per city, and each city has only one lampstand.

This is the quotation by Nee church that I was discussing with testallthings:

(The Normal Christian Church Life, Chapter 5, by Watchman Nee):

Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, “To what church do you belong?” The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted—in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, “I belong to the church in Ephesus,” or “I belong to the church in Shanghai,” or “I belong to the church in Los Angeles.” It is our being in Christ that separates us from the world, and it is our being in a given locality that separates us from other believers. It is only because we reside in a different place from them that we belong to a different church. The only reason I do not belong to the same church as other believers is that I do not live in the same place as they do. If I wish to be in the same church, then I must change my residence to the same place. If, on the other hand, I wish to be in a different church from others in my locality, then the only solution to my problem is to move to a different locality. Difference of locality is the only justification for division among believers.

Right here, Nee says there is a (genuine) division in the church, and it is based upon locality. He also seems to sanction the use of locality to define and name a local church, and suggest that we should use locality when we define what church we belong to. Thus, Lee's church model of taking names according to the locality, appears to be in keeping with Nee's view about this.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, if the ground of locality prohibits a house church then it can't be biblical because the NT allows a house church. "House church" doesn't mean it's meeting on the ground of the house, it mean its meeting in a house.

I bring your attention to the logical and rational argument I made from the Bible about useage of the word church and churches in the Bible. This shows majority useage for the word church in connection with city, not house, is 86% compared to 14%. Found in Post #40 by myself in this thread:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

I also bring your attention to post #51 by "testallthings" here:
"It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city."
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

Cal · 09-05-2016, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Supposedly the LC is a cult, and yet it allows more freedoms than in the other churches that you say are not cults?

Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

Because those groups don't practice mind control.

They allow members to think for themselves.

They don't isolate their members.

They don't try to restrict their members to only reading their materials.

They don't put pressure on members to attend an inordinate number of meetings and conferences.

They don't declare churches as "rogue" because they don't practice "one publication."

They don't declare any church a false church if it doesn't line up with their headquarters.

They are open the public debate about their beliefs, practices and history.

They don't hide their history.

They don't assassinate the characters of those who publicly question them

They don't tell members that if they leave their movement they are leaving "God's best" or suggest that God will judge them for doing so.

They no longer push the teaching that they are the "one true church."

ZNPaaneah · 09-05-2016, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not Witness Lee's OT teaching, it is Nee's and is based upon Jesus's words in the New Testament (not old) in Revelation that addresses only 7 churches in Revelation, one per city, and each city has only one lampstand.

My point is that the Old Testament verses teach that you must build the temple on a specific ground and that you must go up to that temple every year to worship God. There is no such New Testament teaching. The woman at the well in the gospel of John referred to this OT teaching and Jesus told her that the New Testament was different.

There is no teaching in the book of Revelation that says the "proper ground" of a church is the boundary of a city. You infer this from the fact that there are 7 letters written to seven churches, each in a city. I would be happy to look carefully at that portion of the word with you to see what the New Testament does teach concerning the church, it is a fantastic portion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In another thread I showed logically and rationally from the Bible that Nee's teaching of the ground of the church as being the locality is correct.

I repeat this from the thread about Nee's church that I was discussing with testallthings:

(The Normal Christian Church Life, Chapter 5, by Watchman Nee):

Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, “To what church do you belong?” The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted—in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, “I belong to the church in Ephesus,” or “I belong to the church in Shanghai,” or “I belong to the church in Los Angeles.” It is our being in Christ that separates us from the world, and it is our being in a given locality that separates us from other believers. It is only because we reside in a different place from them that we belong to a different church. The only reason I do not belong to the same church as other believers is that I do not live in the same place as they do. If I wish to be in the same church, then I must change my residence to the same place. If, on the other hand, I wish to be in a different church from others in my locality, then the only solution to my problem is to move to a different locality. Difference of locality is the only justification for division among believers.

Right here, Nee says there is a (genuine) division in the church, and it is based upon locality. He also seems to sanction the use of locality to define and name a local church, and suggest that we should use locality when we define what church we belong to. Thus, Lee's church model of taking names according to the locality, appears to be in keeping with Nee's view about this.

Fair enough let's ask the question "to what church do you belong?"

The church belongs to God (church of God -- 1Cor 1:2)
The church belongs to Christ (church of Christ -- Rom 16:16)
The church belongs to the saints (church of the saints -- 1Cor 14:33)

As for me I belong to Christ and to God. As James said "a bondservant of God and Jesus Christ".

Where, in the Bible does it say I belong to a church?

You can have an elder "of a church" or a deacon "of a church", but that is the office, not the person. You can be a servant of the church, as Phoebe was, but that is because you are servant of the Lord. She serves the church because that is what the Lord has told her to do.

I don't belong to the church, the church belongs to me. It is a meeting. This meeting is created when saints meet, it is created by the Lord's redeeming work, and it is created by God.

It is a meeting whenever two or three gather together, but if you want it to be a meeting that has the presence of Jesus you need to meet together into His name. The name belongs to Jesus, the meeting belongs to Jesus, and the believers meeting belong to Jesus.

So once again you (and Watchman Nee) appear to have exposed my ignorance. Please tell me the verse in the Bible which says I belong to the church.

The church is the Body of Christ, and I am a member of the Body. But every member answers to the head, not to the Body. Again, I belong to Jesus Christ the head. This is not semantics.

Rev 3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more:

You have to overcome before the Lord makes you a pillar in the temple of His God. Prior to that you can "go out" if that is where He sends you, hence you don't belong to the church, you belong to Jesus.

So then, to answer Watchman Nee, I don't belong to a church, I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have met with Christians in Houston, Irving, Dallas, College Station, Reynosa, Austin, El Paso, Odessa, Midland, Anaheim, Atlanta, Columbus, Taipei, New York City, and quite a few other places. I have been a servant of various churches, and I have been a deacon. I have also been an evangelist sent by a church and a full time construction worker sent by another church. Interestingly enough, every time I have ever met with other Christians it has been in either a city, a town, or a house. If I had to guess 84% in cities and 16% in homes, never thought about that before, but I'll accept your math. But I never belonged to any church. My service was always unto the Lord.

DistantStar · 09-05-2016, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Personally I dislike the word cult. The definition of a cult includes the early church. It is not a New Testament term and the utter vagueness of this term authors confusion.

I see your point and I agree. I am not saying that either the LC denomination or any other sect is a cult. I was making a point that IF either the LC or one of the sects he mentioned is a cult, then the LC could just as likely be the cult.

But like I said, this a red herring to distract us into defending things we don't believe in.

Cal · 09-05-2016, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I bring your attention to the logical and rational argument I made from the Bible about useage of the word church and churches in the Bible. This shows majority useage for the word church in connection with city, not house, is 86% compared to 14%. Found in Post #40 by myself in this thread:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

I also bring your attention to post #51 by "testallthings" here:
"It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city."
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

The fact is if its not 100% then it's not a binding principle. If there is an exception you have to honor the exception.

Here's an analogy of your argument: "86% of swans are white. 14% are black. Therefore, all true swans are white."

Say what?

And as I've said, history is not the authority. We don't really know for sure how things operated back then. If you cannot make an airtight case from the Bible alone that the only valid churches are city churches then you don't have a case at all, and you should back away from it. It's called "reasonable doubt" and it's obvious to any clear thinking individual that you don't go around declaring everyone else is dead wrong and divisive and not real churches and out of God's plan based on an argument that has REASONABLE DOUBT. The implications are too grave to do that.

Would you sentence someone to death if there was reasonable doubt he committed the crime? I hope not. But that's what you are doing to churches all over the world. You don't know for sure God doesn't recognize them. The Bible doesn't make that clear. Yet here you are claiming to have knowledge you can't possibly have. Don't you know you are going to have to answer for that?

If you still like the local ground idea and want to practice it yourself, then go ahead, I guess. But lay off the public declarations and, I would suggest, the assurance that everyone else is wrong. You aren't smart enough, clear enough or good enough to do that. Show some humility, for your own sake if no one else's.

Cal · 09-05-2016, 08:41 AM

Again, I think it's an error to seek to define specifically for everyone what theoretically is a genuine practical church and what isn't. And it's even worse to try to do it in practice.

The Bible never says we are supposed to discern what are real churches. It's not our job to do that. But Nee felt like that's what he needed to do.* So he set out to create the definition. Again, he reminds me of Ayn Rand. She set out to define the nature of reality in a way that led to a life practice. She was a very smart woman and created something that seemed reasonable and pretty airtight. The problem is she made the same mistake Nee did. She pretended her assumptions were facts. She jumped to conclusions and pretended she wasn't jumping to conclusions. Nee did the same thing with the local ground, and with many of his other teachings, too.

Human beings want things defined. Wouldn't it be great if we knew exactly what church is? Then we could know whether we are right, and just as importantly to fallen humans, when somebody else is wrong.

But God is wise. He doesn't give us that kind of knowledge because he knows, as we all should know by now, that the church is not something based on outward practices. It's based on a mysterious reality God has created that we can't quite define. When we try to define it completely and pretend we have, we come up with something that is actually false. But being deceived that we have it defined, as Nee did, we proceed to beat others over the head with it, as the LCM, and unfortunately our friend Evangelical, does.

God wished to protect us from that, which is why he didn't completely define how to do church, and so left us with the freedom to follow him and to honor those who do it differently.

* Nee actually had an ulterior motive for doing this. He wanted to invalidate the foreign denominations that were dominating the Christian landscape in his native China. He wanted to break their bonds and the way to do it was to create an ecclesiology which diminished them.

ZNPaaneah · 09-05-2016, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

About the locality, I bring your attention to the logical and rational argument I made from the Bible about useage of the word church and churches in the Bible. This shows majority useage for the word church in connection with city, not house, is 86% compared to 14%. Found in Post #40 by myself in this thread:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

Yes, I see that. But here is where I am having trouble. I was in the church in Odessa in 1983. We met in a house for a year and we were a "local church". Witness Lee fully accepted us, Texas elders fully accepted us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I also bring your attention to post #51 by "testallthings" here:
"It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city."
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

Yes, I see that, but here is where I am having trouble. There have been two different cities in the US where the Local church took the ground, set up a church in that city, and then a few years later set up a separate and independent church in the exact same city. So you can understand my confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not Witness Lee's OT teaching, it is Nee's and is also based upon Jesus's words in the New Testament (not old) in Revelation that addresses only 7 churches in Revelation, one per city, and each city has only one lampstand.

Yes, it is true that Witness Lee uses these verses to "support" his teaching. However, he makes the teaching based on Old Testament verses concerning the Temple, then uses Ephesians to show that the Temple is a type of the church.

Once he has made the teaching he then "proves" it by showing that every instance of the use of the church fits his paradigm (except for the 16% of inconvenient instances which he ignores).

But there is no New Testament teaching concerning the "ground of the church". The New Testament does teach us about every key doctrine, but somehow skipped this crucial one. How is it that something so critical as this was ignored by Paul, and Peter, and John, etc.?

This doctrine has been used for over 60 years. Has it really caused believers to be one? The Local Churches that I knew and experienced were completely cut off from fellowship with all other believers. If you value oneness with all believers it is a very strange way to show it. So strange in fact that I started to examine if there was something else they might be valuing instead. Bottom line they are double minded, trying to serve God and mammon.

Ohio · 09-05-2016, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

The degraded Recovery has its share of homosexuals, they just keep them locked up in the closet.

OBW · 09-05-2016, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From Normal Christian Church Life, Ch. 5 "THE BASIS OF UNION AND DIVISION".

"The scriptural method of founding a church is simply by preaching the gospel; nothing further is necessary, or even permissible. If people hear the gospel and receive the Lord as their Savior, then they are a church; there is no need of any further procedure in order to become a church."

"If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place; there is no further step necessary in order to make him a constituent. No subsequent joining is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition."

Interesting formula. It sounds inclusive. It seems benign.

But it does not meet the requested status as a definition. It is merely a statement asserted by someone. If I instead assert that it is a collection of all people who diligently watch every episode of Star Trek (the original series), I have said something no more or no less founded than what you have claimed Nee said in TNCCL.

I will admit that mine is seriously in left field relative to the underlying topic. But without something to make Nee's more than good-sounding mumbo jumbo, his is no more substantial than mine. An opinion placed into a book. It may actually be on topic, but there is no evidence that it is sound relative to the scripture — the one thing that must underpin anything that is claimed to be of spiritual and Christian significance.

And while I did not simply say that I do not agree with Nee and/or Lee on this subject, within this forum, you should presume that the statements made by Nee and Lee are insufficient in themselves to support any position. There must be more than their own statements.

And you have said nothing except for some nice-sounding things from one of their books.

Provide the evidence that the scripture actually defines such a thing. Not that Nee or Lee says that it is there, or what it means assuming it is there.

OBW · 09-05-2016, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

Some groups in Christianity are marrying homosexuals. That is very different from declaring that Christianity is marrying homosexuals.

You are washing the error of a few onto the whole. It is no more applicable to the majority of Christianity than it is to the LCM.

That there will be some who go off into serious error is sort of given. That would seem to have been what was happening with some in Thyatira. Some really deep things of Satan. And yet there was still a church. Still a lampstand. Not a group that could be cast aside for failing to meet Nee's formula of whatever.

OBW · 09-05-2016, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the New Testament, the singular word "church" is always used when referring to the "church in the city.."

There is no verse in the New Testament that says "churches in the city.."

This whole line of reasoning is predicated on the presumption that the meaning of the word when mentioned with respect to a city can only be "assembly" as in a single collection of actual people meeting together. Yet we see the word clearly meaning more than that in other contexts, therefore it is presumptuous to claim that it means universal when it is OK to mean that, but standalone assembly when a city name is invoked.

But Nee had no basis to make that assertion. Just a desire for it to be so. And in making that assertion, he created a rule that did not account for the house churches. And when he was faced with them, he simply said it couldn't mean what it clearly did mean. Sort of like you. Claiming there are no house churches.

Set the rule, bring on the evidence against it and dismiss that evidence with the rule.

If Nee were putting this in any kind of paper for a scholarly work in school, he would be failed for not properly dealing with the evidence against his proposition. He probably would have been sent to take a few classes in logic and philosophy so that his thinking would not be so scattered lacking in sound reasoning.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact is if its not 100% then it's not a binding principle. If there is an exception you have to honor the exception.
Here's an analogy of your argument: "86% of swans are white. 14% are black. Therefore, all true swans are white."
Say what?
And as I've said, history is not the authority. We don't really know for sure how things operated back then. If you cannot make an airtight case from the Bible alone that the only valid churches are city churches then you don't have a case at all, and you should back away from it.

I am basically a mathematician (sorry), I am more comfortable in the realm of logic, facts and figures. I deal with these sorts of mathematical problems all the time.

The thing about "reasonable doubt" is that reasonable doubt depends upon what we are talking about. For taking ones life, 86% is probably not beyond reasonable doubt. For deciding whether we should gamble $5, we may accept we could be wrong and willing to risk $5 for 86%, so 86% would be acceptable. If gambling $5000000 we may not be happy with 86% , we want 99.999%!

We must consider the consequence of the thing we are talking about. To kill an innocent life is a high consequence.

But I will accept a level of 100% if you wish, assuming that being wrong about this is a high consequence.

You make a valid point. I can modify my statement to say "86% + 14% = 100% use of the word church for city OR house, proves beyond a doubt that
a church is never greater than a city.

Would you agree with that?

In other words, that 86% are white swans and 14% are black proves that none of those swans are elephants.

I may accept that a church can be smaller than a city, as I cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But since I can prove that a church is not greater than a city to a degree of 100%, surely this rules out any church that claims to be bigger than a city.

This excludes any group that extends its organization larger than the city. Most denominations, the clergy-laity ones are in this category (baptist for example, are not).

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This whole line of reasoning is predicated on the presumption that the meaning of the word when mentioned with respect to a city can only be "assembly" as in a single collection of actual people meeting together...

Suppose our homes are churches. Or rather, in our homes are churches (we are the church). So if I meet at home with my family, and you meet at home with your family, we are two churches. If I visit your home, I am visiting your church? Suppose we break bread in each of our homes. Suppose we live on the same street. hmm where is the unity in that? It doesn't seem right to me, if we never come together.

Freedom · 09-05-2016, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This whole line of reasoning is predicated on the presumption that the meaning of the word when mentioned with respect to a city can only be "assembly" as in a single collection of actual people meeting together. Yet we see the word clearly meaning more than that in other contexts, therefore it is presumptuous to claim that it means universal when it is OK to mean that, but standalone assembly when a city name is invoked.

I think one other thing that Nee didn't take into consideration is that a supposed existence of a single assembly in each city could really have only worked in the 1st century church. I'm no church historian and I don't know what speculations have been made about the various churches in ancient times, but I think it's fair to say that city populations were smaller, but more importantly, Christianity had yet to spread on a larger scale.

In 1 Cor 14, Paul speaks of the whole church coming together in one place (which seems to be implied to happen non-regularly). So at least in Corinth, it wasn't impractical for everyone to assemble together. The single assembly was a matter of feasibility, and probably also because they all were already familiar with each other. In other of Paul's epistles like Philemon where the assembly is identified by a house, it tears the notion of a single assembly in a city to shreds.

So Nee seemed to latch on to a certain pattern that he saw in the NT. He was unable to see the exceptions. He certainly didn't see the consequences. Others have fallen into the same trap. I hear about various people/books advocating for a return to the practice the early church. Sad to say, I already know how such an endeavor is going to turn out. There are just to many unknowns to build a church model rooted in the past.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Some groups in Christianity are marrying homosexuals. That is very different from declaring that Christianity is marrying homosexuals.

I could say Christians are not marrying homosexuals. This means every group that does this is not Christian. Consider Mystery Babylon. The church went from Judaism, to a period of normality to paganism. The church that receives the pagan teachings. The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I see that. But here is where I am having trouble. I was in the church in Odessa in 1983. We met in a house for a year and we were a "local church". Witness Lee fully accepted us, Texas elders fully accepted us.

I would not accept the hypocrisy either. You somewhat convince me on this matter, not so much on the view of the church as per Nee, which as you say, is probably not essential, but rather desirable, doctrine. The ground of the church doesn't change anyone's salvation, but it is something which affects our testimony and how outsiders view the church. It somewhat affects a person's quality of spiritual life. If I convert someone, the problem is they have no where to go, except a Roman Catholic or other church like that. Should I encourage them to meet there in the name of fellowship?

However the notion of one church per city is historical and factual. It is found in the bible if we notice that the plural word "churches" is never used in conjunction with a city.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting formula. It sounds inclusive. It seems benign...

It is a historical fact that a church in the New Testament was not smaller than a city. For this I bring your attention to The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation By Dale Moody
p. 435

The New Testament also speaks of the church as the one body of Christ composed of all true believers in all places, but it never speaks of a plurality of churches in one city (Col 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22; 2:14-21;3:6-10;4:4,12; 5:23-33). It comes as a jolt, but it must be said again that the modern concept of a plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.

I bring your attention to post #51 by "testallthings" here:
"It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city."
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ad.php?p=50465

My study on counting the number of times the word church is used versus churches in relation to city, house or region, seems valid to me.

A plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.

If we take a pure factual black and white new testament or biblical approach to this, we must agree. It's there in plain black and white.

The question under discussion then is whether or not it is acceptable to God, to contradict this model, or rather, whether to adopt it. Lee/Nee say no, others say yes.

The principle of one lampstand per city as per Revelation, seems to me to indicate no. Otherwise Jesus would have talked about many lampstands per city.

We cannot truly be a "100% bible following" and "new testament" Christian unless we adopt the one city per church model.

Evangelical · 09-05-2016, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that the Old Testament verses teach that you must build the temple on a specific ground and that you must go up to that temple every year to worship God. There is no such New Testament teaching. The woman at the well in the gospel of John referred to this OT teaching and Jesus told her that the New Testament was different...

So far I don't think anyone else here has provided that woman at the well scripture. I have to agree it indicates we don't have to meet at a certain place. And I think the objective of the ground of locality doctrine, is not so much to insist on meeting at a particular place (in a park, or in a house, or in a cathedral), but so that we don't meet because of anything except the fact we believe in the Lord and live in the same area.

We usually don't use the expression "of the church". We say "in the church". We are in the church because we are always part of it. Simply put, those in the church are those in Christ (by faith).

There is only one church, the universal church. Every believer in space and time is part of that, no matter where or when they are.

In practical expression there are many local churches. Everyone is in the church locality of the place they reside, by virtue of the fact they are all believers.

Yet not everyone is in the local church practically. We need the practical expression and coming together practically otherwise we cannot be a visible entity on the Earth. Christ said we must shine our light, he said this to the disciples collectively. In this sense, each church has only one lamp stand to shine, which is the presence of Christ, collectively. If there are 10 house churches in one area and each does its own thing, the world will see 10 churches, not one. It will see 10 lampstands and not one.

Scripture seems to speak of the church of God as an entity that can be despised and can be left:

1 Cor 11:22 "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."

Paul seems to speak of the church as an entity that he does not belong to:

Philippians 4:15 "You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone;"

So I think we all belong to the one universal church. But if we think that is enough we are not being practical. There is also the local church, which is something we can join or leave.

Freedom · 09-05-2016, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider Mystery Babylon. The church went from Judaism, to a period of normality to paganism. The church that receives the pagan teachings. The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

Have you ever stopped to consider as to whether or not the so-called "pagan teachings" are the problem that you think that they are? I once lived in fear of anything 'pagan'. Then one day, I realized that it was nothing more than a boogeyman. I didn't even know what pagan was - I wouldn't know it if I saw it.

Another poster here who hasn't posted in a while previous mentioned a book titled Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow, which pulled strongly from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (A book which Lee liked). Woodrow later published a book recanting his previous book. Here is a statement he has on his website. He says it better than I could say it. Any obsession of 'pagan' things is senseless:

Quote:

Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).

Because Babylon had a tower (Gen. 11:4), some suppose this must be why there are church buildings with towers or steeples: they are copying Babylon! A newspaper reporter in Columbus, Ohio, wrote to me about this. In that city, and numerous other places, this claim has been made. Let me say it quite clearly: No church ever included a steeple or tower on their house of worship to copy the tower of Babel! Why discredit thousands of born-again Christians by promoting ideas that have no connection? If a tower in itself is pagan, God would be pagan, for David described him as “my high tower” (2 Sam. 22:3; cf. Prov. 18:10).

No Christian who puts a bumper sticker with a fish symbol on the back of his car has ever done so to honor the fish-god Dagon. No congregation has ever put a cross on a church building for the purpose of honoring Tammuz. No Christian has ever gone to an Easter sunrise service to worship Baal. No Christian has ever worshipped a Christmas tree as an idol. Claims that imply “all these things started in Babylon,” are not only divisive and fruitless, they are untrue.

The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pa...n-mystery.html

Ohio · 09-06-2016, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 12:41 AM

BTW if anyone would like to consider home churches in a biblical one city per church model, there is this link:

http://homechurchhelp.com/there-is-one-church-in-a-city

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

That's not the issue. The issue is taking those pagan things, and mixing them with the truth. I don't see them doing that in the LSM feasts. Easter, Christmas, are mixtures of pagan things with Christian things. It is the mixture that God does not like.

Consider what God says about mixture:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 MKJV
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?
And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you
and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

Have you ever stopped to consider as to whether or not the so-called "pagan teachings" are the problem that you think that they are? I once lived in fear of anything 'pagan'. Then one day, I realized that it was nothing more than a boogeyman. I didn't even know what pagan was - I wouldn't know it if I saw it.

Another poster here who hasn't posted in a while previous mentioned a book titled Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow, which pulled strongly from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (A book which Lee liked). Woodrow later published a book recanting his previous book. Here is a statement he has on his website. He says it better than I could say it. Any obsession of 'pagan' things is senseless:

Are they a problem? Let's see what God says:

"Thus saith the LORD, 'Learn not the way of the heathen... for the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.'" (Jer 10:2-4)

First of all, God does not like His children learning the ways of the heathen and adopting their vain customs. Everybody knows that Christmas and Easter are vain - they only really exist so that the secular world can make money. It is altogether commercial. Businesses rely upon Christmas and Easter to make a large profit. Christ no where asked us to celebrate such things.
Secondly the decorating of trees is clearly prohibited.

Ohio · 09-06-2016, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not the issue. The issue is taking those pagan things, and mixing them with the truth. I don't see them doing that in the LSM feasts. Easter, Christmas, are mixtures of pagan things with Christian things. It is the mixture that God does not like.

You also excuse LSM for mixing fleshly money-making schemes with the gospel. You excuse them when they mix endless litigations with their ministry. You excuse them when they peddle the word of God, adulterating it for gain, making merchandise of God's people.

You can forgive LSM of everything, yet you forgive other Chrstians of nothing.

Your double standards are so troubling that they keep me up at night.

Cal · 09-06-2016, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We must consider the consequence of the thing we are talking about. To kill an innocent life is a high consequence.

But I will accept a level of 100% if you wish, assuming that being wrong about this is a high consequence.

You make a valid point. I can modify my statement to say "86% + 14% = 100% use of the word church for city OR house, proves beyond a doubt that
a church is never greater than a city.

Would you agree with that?

In other words, that 86% are white swans and 14% are black proves that none of those swans are elephants.

I may accept that a church can be smaller than a city, as I cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But since I can prove that a church is not greater than a city to a degree of 100%, surely this rules out any church that claims to be bigger than a city.

This excludes any group that extends its organization larger than the city. Most denominations, the clergy-laity ones are in this category (baptist for example, are not).

While I appreciate your concession to good sense, I still cannot agree with you, because of Acts 9:31.

"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase."

Here is a singular church in a region bigger than a city. Your percentage calculation left out this reference. So 100% of references to "church" are not all city-sized or smaller. So what do you do with this reference? Lee tried to say this was actually the "universal" church, that the universal church at that time was no bigger than that area. But this is a very speculative reading which is unjustifiable.

So the Bible refers to churches of all sizes. All-time-and-space-sized, Earth-sized, region-sized, city-sized, house-sized. What should we make of this? Well, one thing we clearly shouldn't do is insist a church be city-sized.

As I said, the Bible seems to speak of churches sometimes in a more abstract sense and sometimes in a more practical sense. The church in Ephesians 1-3 was abstract. It had no single set of leaders. Perhaps a house church did have a single set of leaders. What we don't know is whether all or any of the city churches in the NT had a single set of leaders, or whether Paul was referencing the city church in a more abstract way, just speaking of all the Christians in a city. We just don't know and shouldn't pretend we do.

So the problem with the LCM view is when it reads "church in [some city]" it automatically assumes it is "practical" and must be organized under one set of leaders. But my point is we don't know this for sure. And the existence of house churches shows it may have not always be true. Probably the church mentioned in Acts 9:31 wasn't organized under elders. No single group of leaders could have managed it at that time, neither is there any reason to believe they had to. Yet the Bible called it a church.

All Christians know that God has one church in reality. This is reflected by the reality that in one sense there is "one church" in a city, in the same sense there is one church on Earth. The fact that the one church on Earth can be comprised of many smaller more practical churches means that one church in a city can also be comprised of many smaller more practical churches. The principle is the same. We don't know for sure whether this may not have been the case with some churches. That plus the fact that there is no directive in the NT that a church has to be city-sized should make us hesitate to insist on the city church only view.

Good sense tells us that a practical church should be organized in a way which it can practically operate. As long as the church realizes it is part of a larger reality that God sees as one I don't see a problem with the size, and the NT doesn't tell us it is a problem.

micah6v8 · 09-06-2016, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

I am just guessing:- the choice to hold a conference during the Chinese New Year holidays may be because it is a long weekend of public holidays (for the countries that deem it as public holidays) so more people can attend this conference without taking leave from work.

Let me know if I have misunderstood your point.

Ohio · 09-06-2016, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I am just guessing:- the choice to hold a conference during the Chinese New Year holidays may be because it is a long weekend of public holidays (for the countries that deem it as public holidays) so more people can attend this conference without taking leave from work.

Let me know if I have misunderstood your point.

Lee used the Chinese New Year to have a Chinese gospel conference, one of their 7 annual "Feasts." Why was that OK, but it was never OK for Christians to use Christmas to remember His coming, and use that for the gospel. So, what is wrong for every other Christian, is now right for Lee and the Blendeds?

While I was in the LC's, the only holiday I could peacefully celebrate was Chinese New Year. Why is it we never discussed all the pagan origins of Chinese New Year? Why is it every year we heard about the pagan origins of Christmas?

Double standard here?

Nell · 09-06-2016, 07:33 AM

The more men try to define “church” and “do church right” the more elusive “church” becomes. Jesus said “I will build MY church” but fleshly men constantly get in his way. Ever since he said that, men began to try and figure it out, define it, regulate it, legislate it, assume authority over its members,…never being content just to “be” the church. Who is right? Who is wrong? Most likely, all are wrong. Here’s what Paul had to say to the Galatians who were struggling with the law:

5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
…
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

I’m pretty sure this point of view will not change the course of this discussion. I just think someone needed to say it.

Nell

aron · 09-06-2016, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

I’m pretty sure this point of view will not change the course of this discussion. I just think someone needed to say it.

Nell

Nell,

I wish posts like yours could somehow be continually re-cycled into the discussion, rather than get buried in the deluge of posts. I am guilty as anyone of flooding the discussion in my volume of largely self-centered output.

Nell · 09-06-2016, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Nell,

I wish posts like yours could somehow be continually re-cycled into the discussion, rather than get buried in the deluge of posts. I am guilty as anyone of flooding the discussion in my volume of largely self-centered output.

Thank you aron. I appreciate your kindness.

Nell

micah6v8 · 09-06-2016, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee used the Chinese New Year to have a Chinese gospel conference, one of their 7 annual "Feasts." Why was that OK, but it was never OK for Christians to use Christmas to remember His coming, and use that for the gospel. So, what is wrong for every other Christian, is now right for Lee and the Blendeds?

While I was in the LC's, the only holiday I could peacefully celebrate was Chinese New Year. Why is it we never discussed all the pagan origins of Chinese New Year? Why is it every year we heard about the pagan origins of Christmas?

Double standard here?

Not sure I understand what you meant when you said you celebrated Chinese New Year when you were in the LC:- Did you mean that there were some celebrations during the LSM gospel conference? What kind of celebrations were these?

micah6v8 · 09-06-2016, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not the issue. The issue is taking those pagan things, and mixing them with the truth. I don't see them doing that in the LSM feasts. Easter, Christmas, are mixtures of pagan things with Christian things. It is the mixture that God does not like.

Consider what God says about mixture:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 MKJV
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?
And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you
and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.

Some of the hymns in the LR Hymnal have tunes of worldly pop songs (I think there is one which uses a Christmas carol tune).

I don't know why the LR never got round to changing the tunes.

ZNPaaneah · 09-06-2016, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So far I don't think anyone else here has provided that woman at the well scripture. I have to agree it indicates we don't have to meet at a certain place. And I think the objective of the ground of locality doctrine, is not so much to insist on meeting at a particular place (in a park, or in a house, or in a cathedral), but so that we don't meet because of anything except the fact we believe in the Lord and live in the same area...

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful responses to my posts. It seems to me that you agree with the theory of each "church" in each city being "one" yet agree that the practice by the "Lord's Recovery Churches" doesn't correspond very well with that theory.

So here is my question because I also at one time thought much like you do now.

It seemed to me that oneness is a really important matter in the New Testament, it is spoken on extensively by Jesus, Paul, and in every epistle as well as Revelation.

Therefore the New Testament must speak on this practically. What is it that the NT says clearly will help us keep this oneness?

What I am asking you to do is to agree with Watchman Nee that this is important, but to put his own conclusions aside for a moment and go find the verses that you feel are clearly on this topic.

Freedom · 09-06-2016, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

First of all, God does not like His children learning the ways of the heathen and adopting their vain customs. Everybody knows that Christmas and Easter are vain - they only really exist so that the secular world can make money. It is altogether commercial. Businesses rely upon Christmas and Easter to make a large profit. Christ no where asked us to celebrate such things.
Secondly the decorating of trees is clearly prohibited.

Jeremiah 10 is not talking about decorating trees, it's talking about creating/carving idols out of wood. At any rate the point is don't worship idols. An idol is anything that is an object of worship. If someone chooses to worship a tree, then it's an idol. By the same token, if a Christmas tree is not used as an object of worship, then I don't see any problem with it.

I don't think this thread needs to get sidetracked by a Christmas discussion so if you choose to not celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, that is your decision and I respect that.

What I have a problem with is these statements that you've made such as this one: Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations. You've attempted grouped the majority of denominations as people who have "received the pagan teachings." You've referenced a book by Frank Viola that supposedly makes the same claims. Do you know what all this leads to? When people look at things through this kind of lens, the vast majority of Christian are viewed under a cloud of suspicion, and a presumed acceptance of 'pagan' things becomes an excuse for not interacting or having fellowship with a large number of Christians.

This is exactly what Lee did. I know where this leads to, I've seen it with my own eyes. If that is the path you want to take, so be it, but I feel that idolatry and concern over 'pagan' things is something that we each must deal with on an individual basis. In other words, it shouldn't be a means by which others are judged.

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

While I appreciate your concession to good sense, I still cannot agree with you, because of Acts 9:31.
"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase."..

Some of the bible versions say Church for that verse, indicating the universal church.

The King James Version says churches:

Acts 9:31 "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

I suspect if I repeat the study with different Bible versions, we will arrive at different conclusions.

So now we are getting into the realm of which Bible version is correct.

The fact that no where does the Bible say "churches in Jerusalem" and "churches in Corinth" is telling. In fact, Paul's instructions to the church in Corinth about not being divided etc, would not make sense, if there was more than one church in that city.

There are two ways to look at practicality - one from a human perspective and the other from God's perspective .
We could say that multiple churches are practical, convenient even. This is about practicality in terms of achieving man's desires and purpose for the church (as a place to meet and gather and give and receive some spiritual benefit)

But practicality from God's point of view is about not being in division. This is about practicality in terms of achieving God's goals and purpose for the church (in terms of a single entity which shines His one light to the world, and one visible presence of the one Christ).

Thinking about this logically, if there is one Christ (Head) there is only one Body. If one Body, then only one expression of that Body in each locality.

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful responses to my posts. It seems to me that you agree with the theory of each "church" in each city being "one" yet agree that the practice by the "Lord's Recovery Churches" doesn't correspond very well with that theory...

Good advice, I will answer in a few days after I have had time to do this.

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 08:38 PM

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

If the dogs are Christian or Jewish or Muslim, makes no difference, a dog is a dog, and a swine is a swine. We are not to waste time on them.

We are to seek out, the "sons of peace" (Luke 10:6).

Remember, it is God who grows the plants, we just tend to it. If the plant is not ready to be picked and used for God's kingdom, we leave it alone until it becomes ready.

Cal · 09-06-2016, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some of the bible versions say Church for that verse, indicating the universal church.
The King James Version says churches: Acts 9:31 "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

Absolutely we should consider God's perspective on practicality and not man's. I totally agree with this. What I don't agree with is your conclusion that God's practicality demands churches be organized by us on the city level. You are jumping to big conclusions when you think this. The Bible doesn't not make this clear.

I agree that we need to defer to God's version of practicality. Marriage is a good example. We would like to think that if a marriage doesn't seem to be working we can end it. That's practical, right? But God doesn't see it that way. He says, What I've joined together let no one separate. The LCM likes to compare marriage to church membership. But isn't it strange that God made the rules of marriage explicitly clear in many places (NO DIVORCE), but doesn't give us the same types of explicit clarity about the practical church? Why would God clarify the grounds of marriage but not the ground of thee church? Isn't the church more important? It doesn't make sense.

Maybe the reason God didn't explicitly tell us that the city church is the only valid manifestation of a practical church because it isn't.

Well, consider if he did. Suppose there indeed was a verse that said something like: "There is only one practical church per city, all smaller or larger subdivisions are not real churches. This church must be led by one set of organized leaders." Some LCMers act as if they wish there was such a verse.

But suppose the Bible said something like that. Now, how would that have worked out in history? It doesn't take long to envision how. The church in each city would have been dominated by one group of entrenched leaders. If this group became corrupt, nothing could have been done about. They would have had the word on their side. Recovery would have been impossible

Either that would have happened, or groups of leaders would have forever been battling to be king of the hill in the city, endlessly fighting over who was the true church in the city, each accusing the other of being false. Ironically, battles like this between rival groups proclaiming to be he true city church are common among LCM churches and other brands.

Trust me, the last thing we want is for the local ground teaching to become mainstream. It won't. But if it did it would be a disaster.

Which leads us to the final insight, which is the local ground teaching only "works" (if you can call it "working) when it is held by a fringe tiny minority group which makes ivory tower claims about how it is the "truth," but one that will never be tested by the majority of Christians, because if it was tested, we would see if for what it is, an utter miscalculation. Thus it really only exists to give those fringe minorities that hold to it the feeling that they are right and special everyone else is wrong. That's all it's good for, if you can call that "good."

Evangelical · 09-06-2016, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Absolutely we should consider God's perspective on practicality and not man's. I totally agree with this. What I don't agree with is your conclusion that God's practicality demands churches be organized by us on the city level. You are jumping to big conclusions when you think this. The Bible doesn't not make this clear...

Your understanding of my conclusion is incorrect. There have been denominations or movements which attempt to create a one city per church model.

But Nee did not have this intention, in his book Normal church life, he says he did not want this to be used as a "manual for service"0

In the preface
"One of the prayers I have offered in connection with this book is that the Lord should keep it from those who oppose and would use it as a chart for attack and also from those who agree and would use it as a manual for service. I dread the latter far more than the former."

I am not arguing for an organized city church. I am arguing for no organization, and locality and Christ is its only identification and name. I am arguing, against division and denominationalism as being the only alternative.

In the LC there is no organization. Please see: http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=IGAJA34GX9UY9

So I would say that the LC is an attempt to do church without any organization at all, recognizing that the identity is per city.

A house church is an organized church, a global or regional church is an organized church, but if every believer practiced "no organization", then we would be "the local church", "the church in ... " .

I would agree that a teaching that says "you must join my city church" would be a disaster. What would not be a disaster, however, is if everyone left their denominations willingly, and met together on the basis of Christ and locality alone, that would be a return to a "normal church life" and New Testament Christianity.

ZNPaaneah · 09-07-2016, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you."..

You quoted that verse out of context. Here is the context:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.

If you judge that the "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew" is a "dog" then you also will be judged with the same judgement with which you judge others.

When you read verses 1-5 it seems Jesus is telling us not to judge since He says "judge not". But that ignores verse 6. How do you reconcile these two portions as it is clearly meant to be considered as two parts of one whole?

Jesus doesn't tell us not to judge ourselves, He only tells us not to judge others. By all means judge your dog nature or swine nature.

This is reiterated by James who tells us not to judge our brother.

Evangelical · 09-07-2016, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted that verse out of context...

I consider the verse to be speaking to unbelievers. All gentiles are really dogs you know? Jesus called the Canaanite woman a dog. If we are not to judge who is a dog and who is a swine, then how can we obey that verse? But I believe a dog and a swine refers to a person's behavior, not the person themselves. Judge the sin not the sinner you know? Then this is not judging to call someone a dog or swine because of their bad behavior. I mean if any person no matter who they are is acting like a dog or swine then we avoid them.

micah6v8 · 09-07-2016, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted that verse out of context. Here is the context:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.

I was googling for explanations of Matt 7:6

One of the first links I found was this
http://www.gotquestions.org/pearls-before-swine.html

I will tentatively go with this for now. If anyone has a different take, please share.

aron · 09-07-2016, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The truth about your statement "The Bible doesn't say we can't denominate." The Bible is the truth, so I gave you truth, because I gave you the verses about denominating.

If you stand in a denomination, stand absolutely. If you stand as a free group, stand absolutely. If you stand on the ground of the church, stand absolutely. Otherwise, you are in a marsh. If you give up the denominations, yet you are not absolute for the proper ground of the church, you are in a marsh. You may also be in the local church life and not be absolute. That is a marsh. Even the Lord cannot heal a marsh. A marsh is a neutral, halfway place, full of compromise.
The Visions of Ezekiel, by Witness Lee

The people who stand in denominations stand in Christ, and for Christ. That is why they are there. I can with clean conscience receive them in the name of Christ, and be reciprocated. Witness Lee offered a swamp. You couldn't even stand in his presence in a plaid shirt, without getting ripped up. "That was disrespectful! Don't you know, we owe him our lives!" The man was either an egoist and bully who used the "ground" to grind his minions into mincemeat, and that's the positive view, or a delusional megalomaniac, a less sanguine view.

And that's the only ground you could stand on in the local church programme. Pay lip service to Jesus Christ, pooh-pooh the "fallen denominations", and be abjectly servile to the Ascended Master. Everything else there, and I mean everything, was sinking sand. Only the Ministry and the Oracle were firm tethers on which to hang your hat. Everything else shifted weekly, even daily, as the Great Man leaned.

That's the ground of the local church. The rest is a shell game with words. Human theology, pushing verses this way and that. The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure.

The proverbial bloodletting in the name of local church oneness reeks to heaven. The metaphorical blood of the saints cries out. They were crushed by the "ground of the church" by the thousands, even tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions if you count China (and we should). No thanks. I'll be absolute, against this teaching. Because this teaching is against our union in Christ, which is the name above every name. I categorically and unequivocally reject it.

And "no hierarchy" - please. As the FTT trainers put it so plainly, "If others do it, it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." Subjectivity completely off the rails. "What I do is good, what others do is not good." People usually get over this view by their pre-teen years. Those who hold it life-long are under the thrall of darkness. The fact that they brandish verses by the dozen makes it even more pernicious.

Again, I don't mean to disrespect Evangelical, who may be far ahead of me in the race. I just see bad ideas and am trying to call them out. Sorry if my writing isn't seasoned sufficiently with grace.

Ohio · 09-07-2016, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not arguing for an organized city church. I am arguing for no organization, and locality and Christ is its only identification and name. I am arguing, against division and denominationalism as being the only alternative.

So I would say that the LC is an attempt to do church without any organization at all, recognizing that the identity is per city.

Sorry, Evangelical, but the LC's are one of the most organized organizations in all Christendom. Their organizational structure my be often unwritten, but it is extremely well known by their leaders. Try having LC meetings without the HWFMR.

For you to say that the "LC is an attempt to do church without any organization," is like the Pharisees looking at Jesus and saying, "we have spent our whole lives looking for the Messiah."

But I surely understand your point of view, since I have spent my best 30 years in the same system. Until I finally saw through the bullying and the hypocrisy, I was stilled hoping to stay true to "the vision."

Ohio · 09-07-2016, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some of the bible versions say Church for that verse, indicating the universal church.

The King James Version says churches:

Acts 9:31 "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

I suspect if I repeat the study with different Bible versions, we will arrive at different conclusions.

The Greek text of the N.T. is not "confused" in Acts 9.31, and reading it, there is only one "conclusion" in an accurate translation. The word there for church in singular. W. Nee latched onto the KJV because it favored his narrative. The Greek word for church in 9.31 is singular, and the word for churches in 16.5 is plural. Check it out.

I'll repeat what John Myer, former LC co-worker wrote concerning this topic, "there is more scriptural basis for head-covering in the N.T." than there is for the one-city one-church model promoted by LSM.

Actually, I still espouse some of the ideals of the teaching but have never seen it properly applied in church history. It happened in Asia, was recorded in Revelations 2-3, yet actually the Bible never taught it nor promoted it. Those, however, who have promoted it, like the exclusive Brethren and the LSM LC's, have never done so in a way which matched their own teachings. In other words, the teaching has become a breeding ground for hypocrisy and control.

The one church one city model is very similar to the Biblical record of the church "having all things common." (Acts 4.34) It happened! It was wonderful! It was a testimony of God's dynamic salvation! But it was never taught! According to Acts 5, the practice was apparently short lived, and never mentioned again. Why was that?

Those who have attempted to teach and practice "having all things common" have never succeeded, and most have done so for the most corrupt of reasons. Karl Marx based his entire communistic model on this one verse. What does that tell you? Purists are still attempting to practice communism "properly," saying it has never yet been done "correctly." I wonder why that is? How could something which sounds so good and noble on paper produce the most evil of systems?

Such also is the one church one city system.

Cal · 09-07-2016, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your understanding of my conclusion is incorrect. There have been denominations or movements which attempt to create a one city per church model.

But Nee did not have this intention, in his book Normal church life, he says he did not want this to be used as a "manual for service"0

In the preface
"One of the prayers I have offered in connection with this book is that the Lord should keep it from those who oppose and would use it as a chart for attack and also from those who agree and would use it as a manual for service. I dread the latter far more than the former."

I am not arguing for an organized city church. I am arguing for no organization, and locality and Christ is its only identification and name. I am arguing, against division and denominationalism as being the only alternative.

In the LC there is no organization. Please see: http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=IGAJA34GX9UY9

So I would say that the LC is an attempt to do church without any organization at all, recognizing that the identity is per city.

A house church is an organized church, a global or regional church is an organized church, but if every believer practiced "no organization", then we would be "the local church", "the church in ... " .

I would agree that a teaching that says "you must join my city church" would be a disaster. What would not be a disaster, however, is if everyone left their denominations willingly, and met together on the basis of Christ and locality alone, that would be a return to a "normal church life" and New Testament Christianity.

Well you are in error in several places here.

First, your flat statement that the LC is not an organization but an organism is naive wishful thinking. Frankly it's just blatant blather. You might wish it were not an organization, and you might think it shouldn't be, but the fact is all practical churches are in some sense organizations. LCM churches have set elders, service leaders, schedules and budgets. They are organizations to some extent. The "Recovery" itself is a big organization, there is not much spontaneous about it anymore.

Second, the Bible never says the church is in no sense an organization. In fact, once you move from the more abstract church to the more practical church you unavoidably add some organization. It's silly to pretend otherwise and there's really nothing wrong with it being organized. I appreciate that the church is in some sense an organism, but a practical church is also in some sense an organization. Once a church becomes practical it becomes organized. There's no way around it. Are we just going to expect the Spirit to lead someone to balance the books or take care of the landscaping every week? Get real.

Third, the LCM very definitely expects all Christians in a city to join the LCM branch church there. The LCM has never recognized any other local church but their own franchises. If an LCM exists in a city and another group starts meeting as the church in the city there, the LCM will find some excuse to discredit them. Every time.

Fourth, what's going to happen when everyone "leaves their denomination willingly." Leaves and goes.... where? To meet in the park? Where are they going to go? Is everyone going to just magically go to some place and be the church in the city? What place? I guarantee the place they go to is going to be some group that has been lobbying that they are the RIGHT place. It is going to have to be organized in some way. It's going to have to have leaders. Who decides who gets to be the leaders?

The only way the leaders over a city are going to be decided on is: (1) All the members and other potential leaders agree who they are. Not likely to happen. (2) Some overarching organization, like Witness Lee's LSM decides for them. Someone has to decide. Likely some minority will decide. Does that mean everyone else must go along? What if some people feel that in all good conscience they cannot follow whomever is claiming to be a leader of the city church? Do they have to move? The LCM model can't answer any of these and other questions.

So the fact is your dream of some totally organic move of the Spirit with everyone cooperating and with no organization to it is a pipe dream. Like I said, it's ivory tower stuff. And since it's never going to happen, you can appeal to it all you want, claiming everyone is short of the ideal, because your ideal will never be tested. Rest assured you are safe and superior in your hermetically-sealed dream. In the meantime, the churches you scoff at are doing the real work of God's business.

Actually in the city I live in, Austin, the reality of the church in the city is recognized by many church leaders here. There is a lot of intra-church prayer and coordination going on. This is the only way the city church will ever be actually realized. Predictably the LCM scoffs at this kind of thing. They scoff at everything they can't own, control and take credit for.

Here are three messages from a few years back where this was covered across Austin. God is working, and your judgmentalism of churches other than Nee/Lee churches is misguided. If God's gives Christians a vision of citywide oneness, this is how it's going to transpire--not by people like yourself throwing rocks at them from an ivory tower.

Watch the first few minutes of all of them and any of the rest as desired.

http://acfcommunity.org/media/messag...-for-the-city/

ZNPaaneah · 09-07-2016, 12:04 PM

James 4:2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not.

compares these verses with Matt 7. Ye Lust, ye kill, covet and cannot obtain -- this is our dog and swine nature.

3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures.

Matt 7 talks about "ask and you shall receive, but only after it talks about not giving what is holy to the dogs. The reason your prayers are not answered is because you are asking amiss.

11Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbor?

This corresponds with "judge not lest ye be judged".

Again, I would say that when you read James he brings you back to Jesus.

Ohio · 09-07-2016, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Second, the Bible never says the church is in no sense an organization. In fact, once you move from the more abstract church to the more practical church you unavoidably add some organization. It's silly to pretend otherwise and there's really nothing wrong with it being organized. I appreciate that the church is in some sense an organism, but a practical church is also in some sense an organization. Once a church becomes practical it becomes organized. There's no way around it. Are we just going to expect the Spirit to lead someone to balance the books or take care of the landscaping every week? Get real.

When I was back in university in Columbus, I had a very close friend in the LC's. We lived in the brothers' house, and were "best man" at each others' weddings. He was very idealistic, and wanted the brothers' house to be completely "organic," with no schedules or assignments. He longed to see each brother walking by the Spirit, following the anointing within, and doing all those household chores by following the Lord.

As much as I loved him, I just knew that it was not going to work. But ... how could I argue with him? How does anyone argue against spiritually optimistic idealism? You can't. You have to let it run its course, and see if it works or not. It's not spiritual vs. legalism, it's just practical arrangements, or shall I say that dreaded word, organization.

In woodworking and carpentry there is a saying that perfection is the enemy of "good enough." I grew up on job sites where my Dad's foremen would say, "looks good from Public Square." For those not from Cleveland, Public Square was the center of downtown, and our job sites were anywhere from 20 to 200 miles away. So, if you don't look too close, our work was "good enough." Obviously, my good friend's way was perfection in the brothers' house. But it was an idealistic, almost impossible goal to achieve. So why not settle for "good enough," doing scheduled household chores by the Spirit unto the Lord, you know, "whatever you do in word or work do to the Lord." That's the prescribed Biblical way!

Such was Lee's claim that we were "not an organization." It was a pipe dream. Sure we bought into it, matter of fact back in the '70's we believed lots of nonsense, but it had no basis in reality, nor the scripture.

Cal · 09-07-2016, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I was back in university in Columbus, I had a very close friend in the LC's. We lived in the brothers' house, and were "best man" at each others' weddings. He was very idealistic, and wanted the brothers' house to be completely "organic," with no schedules or assignments. He longed to see each brother walking by the Spirit, following the anointing within, and doing all those household chores by following the Lord.

As much as I loved him, I just knew that it was not going to work.

Those were the days, eh? There was a kind of endearing, goofy innocence about it back then.

But it's not innocent anymore, so not endearing. Just goofy.

ZNPaaneah · 09-07-2016, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's ok about the OED, i have hard copy

.

Well I've been in denominations decades longer than I have in the LC and it has never felt like a denomination to me. It could be just that they are so different to denominations that I am persuaded they are not one. Or they truly are not a denomination.

In regard to your comment I quoted above, we have the common faith but we are no organization.

That is, there is no organization called the "local church organization". Living Stream Ministry is a ministry, that is an organization. But the church is not, in keeping with the concept of the church being the Body of Christ, and not an organization of man. There is a clear distinction between church and ministry.

There is no organization, just as there was no human organization with Christ and his 12 disciples. just people grouping themselves together to serve the Lord. There is no human organization, no hierarchy, and no official, permanent leader. The organization is spiritual.

There is no pressure to come to church meetings or not come to church meetings and no pressure to say or do anything in the meetings. There is encouragement for sure, but no pressure.

Like Igzy said there is no New Testament condemnation of "organization". The word church means "assembly". Every meeting has some basic form of organization.

No, I think what we hate is:

These churches are not a perfect work, and the double minded men.

When we first came in we gloried that even though we were brothers of low degree in Christ we were in His high estate. What we hated about the Christian organizations we left was that they had lost that, when the rich were made low there was no glorying.

We hate the filthiness and overflowing of wickedness. We hate the spectator Christianity where everyone is a “hearer only, deluding themselves”.

We were attracted to the church because they visited the widows and the orphans in their affliction. They were unspotted from the world.

But we hated the organizations that hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. They dishonor the poor and have respect to the rich, even though the rich oppress them and drag them into court. They don’t even act or speak like someone who is going to be judged by the Lord’s rule to “love your neighbor as yourself”.

What we hate is the bitter jealousy and faction, the confusion and every vile deed. What we hate is that they lust, they kill, they covet, and they are friends with the world.

How do we know? Because they are speaking one against another, even in lawsuits. We hate the corruption.

What we loved was not that it wasn't an organization but that everyone prayed, everyone worshipped, when someone was sick the elders prayed to heal the sick.

Instead we see phony elders who condemn them. There is no confessing of sins, no forgiveness, no turning a sinner back from the error of his ways. These are the things we hate.

We call this "organized religion" but that isn't really the issue, the issue is that it is dead religion without works of faith.

aron · 09-07-2016, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure..

An interesting point about not taking a name. You know who didn't want to take a name in the NT? The demon(s) in the man of the Gadarenes. When Jesus asked him what was his name he demurred, "Oh, there's a bunch of us, here." He didn't want to be exposed.

Then he flowed out into a bunch of unclean animals, each with its own name. "Lord's move to Europe". "Christians on Campus". "Defense and Confirmation Project". "Bibles for America". "Affirmation and Critique". Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion.

And another point, about taking a names - the church in Pergamos was a name, right? A de-nomination? And Pergamos was, so the RecV tells us, a genuine church with a genuine lampstand. So why isn't the Lutheran church a genuine church with a genuine lampstand, if that's what Pergamos signifies? Or doesn't the interpretation carry that far? Why not, it doesn't work for you anymore? Or Thyatira, a genuine church, no? Real Christians, even overcomers, and the appelation 'ekklesia'. . . but not on the local ground? Then why the lampstand? If Thyatira gets a lampstand, then why isn't it a legitimate church on the proper ground (Christ)?

To me, the whole thing is just a shell game with words. Vanity and confusion.

Freedom · 09-07-2016, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

As much as I loved him, I just knew that it was not going to work. But ... how could I argue with him? How does anyone argue against spiritually optimistic idealism? You can't. You have to let it run its course, and see if it works or not. It's not spiritual vs. legalism, it's just practical arrangements, or shall I say that dreaded word, organization.

This is so very true. It's next to impossible to argue with spiritual idealism. The idealism often seems to sound good, but when the inevitable failures/discrepancies occur, the idealism interferes with the ability to for revision.

I'm not against working to avoid division. I'm not against church unity. I'm not against seeking to follow the Spirit. But the fact of the matter is that innocent ideals don't pan out so well in real life, and as Ohio says, such things can turn into a pipe dream if overemphasized. Despite having only the best intentions, things don't always work out the way that we expect them to.

Even Paul was involved in a sharp disagreement with Barnabas and this ultimately resulted in them separating and working in different regions. It was probably for the better if they were unable to get along. Did Paul want to be involved in a disagreement? Of course not. Had Paul been operating under a Lee-like paradigm where there is the inability to accept that disagreements happen, then maybe he would have taken the Lee approach and slandered Barnabas.

This is is what idealism can lead to. It creates a paradigm that cannot accept or handle negative feedback. When inevitable situations occur, groups like the LC will point fingers - Barnabas should have done such and such. Maybe, maybe not. But the proper response should be to make revisions and move on. If a certain church model is unable to do what it claims to do, it's either time to revise it or move on.

Cal · 09-07-2016, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is is what idealism can lead to. It creates a paradigm that cannot accept or handle negative feedback. When inevitable situations occur, groups like the LC will point fingers - Barnabas should have done such and such. Maybe, maybe not. But the proper response should be to make revisions and move on. If a certain church model is unable to do what it claims to do, it's either time to revise it or move on.

Basic, simple humility tells us to resist pointing fingers. I'm not arguing for relativism. God knows the ultimate truth, but part of that truth as we are to live it is "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. Surely that extends to principles not plainly prescribed in the Bible, like the local ground. LCMers who are for the local ground make the good the enemy of the best, and that a best they cannot even verify. They just believe it. They are like the old hardcore Southerners who trumpeted the refrain "The South shall rise again!" It didn't.

The fact is God uses uncertainty about certain things as a way to keep us humble, general and open. Nee and Lee hated this uncertainty, and so pretended it didn't exist. They acted certain about things they could not reasonably be certain about. The result was pride, stricture, judgmentalism and division. Not exactly what the local ground was supposed to deliver.

Evangelical · 09-07-2016, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

An interesting point about not taking a name. You know who didn't want to take a name in the NT? The demon(s) in the man of the Gadarenes. When Jesus asked him what was his name he demurred, "Oh, there's a bunch of us, here." He didn't want to be exposed.

Then he flowed out into a bunch of unclean animals, each with its own name. "Lord's move to Europe". "Christians on Campus". "Defense and Confirmation Project". "Bibles for America". "Affirmation and Critique". Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion.

And another point, about taking a names - the church in Pergamos was a name, right? A de-nomination? And Pergamos was, so the RecV tells us, a genuine church with a genuine lampstand. So why isn't the Lutheran church a genuine church with a genuine lampstand, if that's what Pergamos signifies? Or doesn't the interpretation carry that far? Why not, it doesn't work for you anymore? Or Thyatira, a genuine church, no? Real Christians, even overcomers, and the appelation 'ekklesia'. . . but not on the local ground? Then why the lampstand? If Thyatira gets a lampstand, then why isn't it a legitimate church on the proper ground (Christ)?

To me, the whole thing is just a shell game with words. Vanity and confusion.

Aron, do you realize you just quoted yourself and responded to yourself?

Your posts are so dramatic and extreme:
"Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion"

This is not about not taking a name as in your demon example. This is about not taking a name other than Christ. Unlike your demon example, we do take a name, we call ourselves Christians. To draw a connection between the demon story and this matter is frankly absurd and irrational.

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivious". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

This is about distinguishing between who we are and what we do (ministry). When we say " I am a Lutheran Christian", we are giving ourself another name, we are identifying ourselves by that name. But if we say "my ministry is called Faith Alone Ministries", this is okay, this is what we do, not who we are.

It is more than just taking names. It is the whole man-made organizational structure that goes with it. It is about not holding onto Christ alone.

My observation is that you have all sorts of arguments for why this and why that, but as Christians we should observe how things were done in the New Testament and try and practice and follow that. On that basis, to denominate is clearly not something we should do.

If we are found to be hypocrites in trying to do this or it doesn't work out, we cannot say that everything we stood for or believed was necessarily wrong. If Lutheranism became corrupted, which it has by their adoption of homosexual marriage, we cannot say that the Reformation was wrong.

I would say that the "genuine church" is everything to do with how genuine we are ourselves individually and with those we meet together with. A church is not genuine just because it conforms to a particular model or structure.

It is possible that there is a Lutheran church that is genuine. The Reformation was genuine, there were genuine Reformed churches. But they stagnated and progressed no further. They adopted the name Lutherans and distinguished themselves from other Christians. So they became sectarian and denominational.

Evangelical · 09-07-2016, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The people who stand in denominations stand in Christ, and for Christ. That is why they are there. I can with clean conscience receive them in the name of Christ, and be reciprocated. Witness Lee offered a swamp. You couldn't even stand in his presence in a plaid shirt, without getting ripped up. "That was disrespectful! Don't you know, we owe him our lives!" The man was either an egoist and bully who used the "ground" to grind his minions into mincemeat, and that's the positive view, or a delusional megalomaniac, a less sanguine view.

And that's the only ground you could stand on in the local church programme. Pay lip service to Jesus Christ, pooh-pooh the "fallen denominations", and be abjectly servile to the Ascended Master. Everything else there, and I mean everything, was sinking sand. Only the Ministry and the Oracle were firm tethers on which to hang your hat. Everything else shifted weekly, even daily, as the Great Man leaned.

That's the ground of the local church. The rest is a shell game with words. Human theology, pushing verses this way and that. The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure.

The proverbial bloodletting in the name of local church oneness reeks to heaven. The metaphorical blood of the saints cries out. They were crushed by the "ground of the church" by the thousands, even tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions if you count China (and we should). No thanks. I'll be absolute, against this teaching. Because this teaching is against our union in Christ, which is the name above every name. I categorically and unequivocally reject it.

And "no hierarchy" - please. As the FTT trainers put it so plainly, "If others do it, it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." Subjectivity completely off the rails. "What I do is good, what others do is not good." People usually get over this view by their pre-teen years. Those who hold it life-long are under the thrall of darkness. The fact that they brandish verses by the dozen makes it even more pernicious.

Again, I don't mean to disrespect Evangelical, who may be far ahead of me in the race. I just see bad ideas and am trying to call them out. Sorry if my writing isn't seasoned sufficiently with grace.

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I would like to see some facts from you about your claims about millions of "metaphorical bloodshed", whatever that even means.

The facts I have seen are that 2000 or so Christians in China were imprisoned or executed because of that terrible cult watch ministry and blindly supported by American evangelicals who think anyone different from them or from another culture is automatically wrong.

The 6 year study done by CRI cleared that all up and found that the local churches are NOT of this sort of illogical and nonsensical diatribe you are coming up with.

Ohio · 09-07-2016, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is so very true. It's next to impossible to argue with spiritual idealism. The idealism often seems to sound good, but when the inevitable failures/discrepancies occur, the idealism interferes with the ability for revision.

This is is what idealism can lead to. It creates a paradigm that cannot accept or handle negative feedback. When inevitable situations occur, groups like the LC will point fingers - Barnabas should have done such and such. Maybe, maybe not. But the proper response should be to make revisions and move on. If a certain church model is unable to do what it claims to do, it's either time to revise it or move on.

This is one of those wonderful things about the New Testament. It is written over the span of time. Time was needed to prove by testing what was good and what was worthless. Time was needed to try people and to test the best of their ideas. In the last century, many have endeavored to return to the book of Acts, but some things in Acts should never be repeated because they failed the test of time. "All things common" is one such "flow" that should not be repeated by fleshly efforts.

We all need to learn this lesson -- just because the Lord led us in the past to do things a certain way does not mean we should codify our efforts for posterity. Were we instructed to walk by the book of Acts, or to walk by the Spirit? Are we robots programmed by "the book," or are we men of God walking by faith?

Ohio · 09-07-2016, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Those were the days, eh? There was a kind of endearing, goofy innocence about it back then.

But it's not innocent anymore, so not endearing. Just goofy.

The difference between a few idealistic college kids and Lee/LSM was that our goofy ideas never hurt others. Either we ended up with dirty dishes in the sink, or not. Our brothers' house kitchen and bathroom were test stations for our own childish spiritual innovations. On the contrary, Lee dreamed up his novel ideas and his minions passed them on down the chain of command, and people got hurt. We wasted hours of valuable time.

Such was life in the Recovery, especially in the '70's and '80's. Endless changes -- what the Bible called the winds and waves of teachings in the sleight of men, with a view to a system of error. (Eph. 4.14) And pity the poor elder who opted out of the latest "flow" to protect the saints under his care.

For those who care to know, the chief complaint concerning Titus Chu over the years was his continued resistance to all those endless and frivolous programs designed and disseminated by Witness Lee and the Blendeds.

OBW · 09-07-2016, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose our homes are churches. Or rather, in our homes are churches (we are the church). So if I meet at home with my family, and you meet at home with your family, we are two churches. If I visit your home, I am visiting your church? Suppose we break bread in each of our homes. Suppose we live on the same street. hmm where is the unity in that? It doesn't seem right to me, if we never come together.

You superimpose simplistic analogies while ignoring very complex realities.

And part of the reality is that if you come into a place and it is a gathering of believers, it is church. Whether you want to simplify it down to my house and your house, or to two small assemblies that are not that far removed from each other, the answer is the same. If I come meet with you, then I am meeting with you. If I do not, I am not. It is not about mine and yours.

That is not to say that you or I may have reasons that we do primarily meet with one group v another.

The thing is that the oh-so benign sounding version (church according to geography) simply puts a smoke screen up to hide the fact that there are other reasons that you prefer to meet with one group rather than some other group. It may be the source of the teachings (Nee/Lee v some less particular source — and except for a few other peculiar sects, virtually none are as tied to a single source as are the followers of Nee and Lee).

You don't want to meet with those who (fill in the blank). There are many reasons. And one is declared as being all-encompassing and therefore able to deflect criticism concerning the errors of the group you like.

From my perspective, church is church. It is not mine other than as a way to identify that I generally join with them. Nor is another yours other than the same considerations. In a few cases, there are clearly some that really are someone's. Those are the ones that insist on following only certain teachers (like what Paul was getting on the Corinthians about). And they may even refer to that same thing concerning the Corinthians to decry all the other groups.

Well, I can tell you that I do not meet with the group that I meet with because they are for teacher "X" or have a sign with name "Y" outside. But there are some that do. Even though their sign fits their formula of an acceptable sign. And their teacher is believed to be the minister of the age.

I do not think that they are the whore of Babylon because they have such erroneous teachings. But I also would not simply suggest that their teachings are simply OK.

Trying to say that we are meeting in separate homes on the same street and hinting that would somehow break unity . . . .
Who is deciding that there is a problem with unity? The one that demands that the other cease meeting separately and accept their teachings without further consideration? Or the one that accepts that we are both Christians even though we disagree on some doctrines and practices? If you think that unity is so important, why are you not willing to come down the street to my house and join with us who do not think that two assemblies in the same city can be churches and not adhere to the exact same doctrines and practices, yet still respect each other ass churches?

And why does one group go around pointing to all the abominations in the other groups as if they have the corner on the right doctrines? The others may honestly believe that they have the better doctrines, but their stance toward the others is not in the same kind of "we are it and you are the daughters of the whore of Babylon" way that the subject of this forum does.

Sort of like the parable of the Good Samaritan, which church (or better, assembly) would you say best fit the pattern of the NT church? The one that spends is time an energy pointing to the flaws of every group other than themselves, or the one that respects the others and limits their complaining to so-called teachers that gather people like coins for their own pockets and egos?

Evangelical · 09-07-2016, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well you are in error in several places here.
First, your flat statement that the LC is not an organization but an organism is naive wishful thinking. Frankly it's just blatant blather. You might wish it were not an organization, and you might think it shouldn't be, but the fact is all practical churches are in some sense organizations. LCM churches have set elders, service leaders, schedules and budgets. They are organizations to some extent. The "Recovery" itself is a big organization, there is not much spontaneous about it anymore.

You are addressing the point of "no organization" which is not my point at all.
It means no human organization, it is led by the Spirit. The organization is according to the Spirit and the Word. Just like the Spirit chose Paul and the elders for each church. It means God's way or the highway.

What is this "real work" you speak of? Marrying gays? Blessing animals? Intra-church prayer? Yes with muslims and buddhists too in many cases. "multi-faith services". Give me a break. It seems you are oblivious to the world situation. Denominations in their self-concocted cocoons, thinking they are doing God's work by conducting rote services every Sunday and providing cake stalls for the community. That's God's work, sure...

A park, would be fine. More like Jesus, spent much of His time sleeping outside, that's where people went to meet Him most of the time. I know of churches that meet in a park. Homeless people are more comfortable to attend. Very minimal, effective, cheap, completely doable. If homeless people can live in a park, then you can have church in a park, why not?

You say it is like an idealogical pipe dream. So then much of the Bible is an idealogical pipe dream. Walked on water yet? moved a mountain yet? Raised a dead chicken yet? Jesus said "ye shall" do that, have you?

Evangelical · 09-07-2016, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You superimpose simplistic analogies while ignoring very complex realities...

The 6 year CRI study shows many of those things you claim are simply untrue. We do not go around pointing out the flaws of every group other than ourselves. We say good things about the work of the denominations as well. After attending the LC for more than a decade, I have heard a negative thing said about denominations only once that I can remember. We do not focus on them at all. If anything I have only heard more negativity coming from those outside of the church against it, than those in it towards denominations. But someone has to be part of Mystery Babylon otherwise God is a liar.

Consider the title:
"Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth."

Who are prostitutes? - those who have friendship with the world. Many churches are like this adopting the worldly entertainments and amusements.
Abominations? - well homosexual marriage is just that.

The CRI concluded that we are an orthodox expression of New Testament Christianity.

aron · 09-08-2016, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who are prostitutes? - those who have friendship with the world. Many churches are like this adopting the worldly entertainments and amusements.
Abominations? - well homosexual marriage is just that.

The CRI concluded that we are an orthodox expression of New Testament Christianity.

Paul said that if you fail at one point of the law, you fail at them all. Other than avoiding Easter eggs, Christmas trees, and homosexual clergy, the local church of Nee and Lee has signally failed to separate itself from the world and flesh and sin. So its continual critiques of its brethren in the denominations makes it look to me as among the worst offenders: not merely worldly but self-righteous, stubborn, divisive, judgmental, and proud. A stronghold, perhaps not of every unclean thing, but most of them, and the worst ones.

Cal · 09-08-2016, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are addressing the point of "no organization" which is not my point at all.
It means no human organization, it is led by the Spirit. The organization is according to the Spirit and the Word. Just like the Spirit chose Paul and the elders for each church. It means God's way or the highway.

Here's what LCMers do. They put together a conference and claim it was done totally organically in the Spirit. Then they see some non-LCM group put together a conference and they say it's just "human organization."

You can't get much more self-serving than that.

Do you think you know what is "human organization" and what isn't for everyone else? Just take care of yourself, Evangelical. Stop presuming to be the Organization Nazi for everyone else. Like I said, you're not smart enough to pull that one off, even if you were taking NZT.

Quote:

What is this "real work" you speak of? Marrying gays? Blessing animals? Intra-church prayer? Yes with muslims and buddhists too in many cases. "multi-faith services". Give me a break. It seems you are oblivious to the world situation.

You know what I meant. I'm talking about leading people to Christ and shepherding them in the truth. You seem oblivious to the thousands of community churches that obey the Bible and don't do the bad things you pointed out. Just because you can find some bad examples doesn't mean everyone does it. You are painting with too broad a brush.

Besides, you are equivocating. Are we talking about churches being invalid because they are not city churches, or because they are degraded? Which is it? When we point out the LCM's degraded history of abuse and shenanigans you appeal to their "proper stance." When we point out that churches don't have to be city churches you appeal to the degradation of some. You are playing both sides of the fence. Back and forth. It's not a good argument.

Even Lee pointed out that though the Corinthian church was degraded it was still a church. The churches in Pergamos and Thyatira were degraded (some in Thyatira even held to "the deep things of Satan," yikes!). But they were still churches. Why were they still churches? Because they were on "the ground?" So are you arguing that you can be degraded, but as long as you are on the ground you are still a church? Are you arguing that if you are not on the ground then you must have a much higher standard to be a church than one that is on the ground, that being on the ground gives you the right to be more degraded?

I'm not saying I like the moral situation with all churches. I'm saying I don't have the wisdom or insight to decide if any practical church is viewed by God as not a church. Now when I watch videos of the LGBT churches online and hear their dead, new-agey, mixed-up sermons I can begin to think, well, maybe that's not a church. But by and large the problems you are citing are not problems with most mainstream churches. Most churches, especially evangelical community churches, are pure in regard to these things. I visit churches in my area regularly and if one of them married gays I would stop going.

So I think you need to stop being so general with your accusations. Be specific about which churches you are accusing. Stop painting with such a broad brush. It's not fair, it's reckless and it just muddles the discussion. Be specific.

You are all over the place in this argument. If we are talking about the local ground being a determiner of what is a church let's do it. If we are talking about purity being a determiner let's do that. And if you are going to talk about degradation then you need to address the degradation in the LCM. But you are going back and forth and not making a very good case either way.

Quote:

If homeless people can live in a park, then you can have church in a park, why not?

Because it's not going to happen, not without a lot of organization anyway. We have what we call Church Under the Bridge in Austin. It's a Sunday meeting for homeless people under an overpass in downtown Austin. I've attended. Once you get used to the smells and strange characters you can deal with it. But it takes a lot of organization to pull off. But it's a good work. God is there. Given your penchant for judgmentalism you'd probably find something wrong with it, though. Probably that it has too much organization.

Quote:

You say it is like an idealogical pipe dream. So then much of the Bible is an idealogical pipe dream. Walked on water yet? moved a mountain yet? Raised a dead chicken yet? Jesus said "ye shall" do that, have you?

I have faith that God can do anything. But your holding out for your ideal is not an act of faith, it's just a device by which you condemn everyone else and reserve valid status for you and yours. If you really had faith you'd be doing positive works to make it happen, instead of condemning everyone else because it hasn't happened.

And raising dead chickens? Is that like blessing animals?

Cal · 09-08-2016, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivious". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

We get it, we get it. What you don't get is this is your fetish, not the Bible's. Get over it.

Besides, doesn't your wife have a first name? That's her personal name. But it's not yours. Oops. There goes your analogy. Why not just consider the names of churches as "first names," for identification? Or should all wives stop using first names and just call themselves "Mrs. So-and-So?"

aron · 09-08-2016, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivion". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

This is about distinguishing between who we are and what we do (ministry). When we say " I am a Lutheran Christian", we are giving ourself another name, we are identifying ourselves by that name. But if we say "my ministry is called Faith Alone Ministries", this is okay, this is what we do, not who we are.

It is more than just taking names. It is the whole man-made organizational structure that goes with it. It is about not holding onto Christ alone.

So there are human organizations, with names, and hierarchies, and that is okay. But the Bride and the Body of Christ are mystical, universal, and shouldn't take names. Okay, got it. Thanks.

What is concerning about this particular effort, here, is that the man-made ministries, supposedly serving the church, are actually usurping the church. The "no names" was merely a ruse to get the flock to divide, then the ministry took over. Supposedly the man-made, named organizations are furthering the church, but in actuality the church is set on by these vampires who drain its very life.

If you go to one of the local churches, so-called, where are the youth? Gone. They have two choices, either to serve the ministry or go in the world. None of them are left. (Now in your geography this may be different, I am speaking of my observations).

The only assurance that the ministry was serving the church and not vice-versa was the assurance of the minister, whom we trusted as sufficiently transformed as to be good on his word. He was not. As he told one of the brothers on the phone, who was wondering where the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars had gone, invested in a company run by Neer-do-well Son #1, "Now you have lost your virginity".

As I said, I see the "names" issue as a shell game to confuse and separate the sheep, whence they become ready prey.

aron · 09-08-2016, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

the local church of Nee and Lee ... continual critiques of its brethren in the denominations makes it look to me as among the worst offenders: not merely worldly but self-righteous, stubborn, divisive, judgmental, and proud. A stronghold, perhaps not of every unclean thing, but most of them, and the worst ones.

Here's an example of stubborn: the Humble Bondslave of the Lord, Witness Lee, apparently had a thorough and remorseful repentance before he left his earthly coil. He told the assembled, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers." Now, this wasn't in reference to Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu, because they had not yet been expelled.

No, it seems Lee finally saw the light regarding his stance on those not currently meeting in the local church sheep pen. Those who met in the dreaded "denominations" (and the un-named, un-affiliated local assemblies he'd previously likened to incestuous daughters of Lot [I kid you not]). Lee said, "We were wrong".

But his Deputies had a hobby-horse to ride, and were determined to ride it to the finish line. So they kept going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I would like to see some facts from you about your claims about millions of "metaphorical bloodshed", whatever that even means.

The facts I have seen are that 2000 or so Christians in China were imprisoned or executed because of that terrible cult watch ministry and blindly supported by American evangelicals who think anyone different from them or from another culture is automatically wrong.

The 6 year study done by CRI cleared that all up and found that the local churches are NOT of this sort of illogical and nonsensical diatribe you are coming up with.

I apologize for my emotional and confused rambling. I'm not very good at argumentation, I'm afraid. I'm much better at being a simple brother who receives those who God has received in Christ Jesus. All of them, not just "God's best".

The metaphorical bloodshed was in reference to the Night of the Long Knives, circa 2007, when several thousands or tens of thousands of the brethren and sistren who'd given their lives to the Lord were rent asunder because some Chinese didn't want to lose face to each other. Culture is strong - you should not underestimate its influence.

And the millions was in reference to the vanished 20 million Shouters Lee once claimed. Not all of them were orthodox Christians unrighteously persecuted by secular authorities and evangelical Christians. Many were, or became, quite violent and cultic. Had Lee preached a simple message of repentance and love, perhaps that could have been avoided. But they got the Processed God, and Eating the Divine. You merely assume no causation between message and outcome, in spite of strong association and commonality.

Cal · 09-08-2016, 07:46 AM

Evangelical,

First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do.

Your logic is that the church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bride should take no name other than her husband's. Even though all wives have first names which are not their husband's names. But, also, husbands are supposed have only one wife, but there are multiple practical churches. So does that mean Christ has many brides? No, it means that the Bride is actually all the church's together. So, following your logic, unless a individual church is presuming to take a name that encompasses the whole Bride you shouldn't say the Bride is taking a name.

My point is that your argument for no name is not only not a biblical command, it's full of holes logically. Now, if you want to privately believe this stuff, that's your business. But I can't believe you are trying to peddle it to others, let alone insist it's something that should be binding on us all.

As aron said, Lee's model served one purpose: To discredit everyone else and convince his followers that they were the only real deal.

aron · 09-08-2016, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I did read them, and pray. You know what the Lord said? "Look at these verses. Does it say,

Quote:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Or does it say

Quote:

Whoever believes and is baptized and meets on the proper ground will be saved, but whoever does not believe, or meet on the proper ground, will be condemned.

What does it say?"

I replied, "It says the first one, Lord, not the second."

Then the Lord said, "Then don't worry about it. You have enough problems already."

OBW · 09-08-2016, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The 6 year CRI study shows many of those things you claim are simply untrue. We do not go around pointing out the flaws of every group other than ourselves. We say good things about the work of the denominations as well.

Well, then you have at least cleaned up your act when in the presence of people doing a paid-for study to declare you "OK."

And some of the written material has been cleaned-up over time. But not all. It is still there. Go back and look at the things in the various "life" studies.

And it was evident that being a church defined solely by the "ground" of the city was not sufficient. Your group's HQ has spend significant time and money suing to declare existing groups which were deemed fully qualified to be the "right" group "one the ground" until some other criteria was violated. And the most common criteria seems to have been the unwillingness of the particular assembly to simply do exactly what the LSM dictated for their meetings. And the allowance of materials written by others, including others from within the group. There were deemed sufficient for the LSM-affiliated group to declare the others unfit to retain their lampstand. So a second church on the ground was established.

Dance around that one all you want. The "ground" is just an outward ruse to hide a series of "you have to do this and that" details to be qualified.

Do you really treat other Christian groups the same as they treat each other? They mostly treat each other pretty well. Even when they don't agree on everything. And they don't insist that meeting with them is required. Of course every group thinks that they have the best collection of teachings and practices. But they don't chastise everyone that is not them.

And I don't care what CRI said. The so-called local churches do chastise everyone else.

And they teach errors that are more than benign.

Evangelical · 09-08-2016, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Paul said that if you fail at one point of the law, you fail at them all. Other than avoiding Easter eggs, Christmas trees, and homosexual clergy, the local church of Nee and Lee has signally failed to separate itself from the world and flesh and sin. So its continual critiques of its brethren in the denominations makes it look to me as among the worst offenders: not merely worldly but self-righteous, stubborn, divisive, judgmental, and proud. A stronghold, perhaps not of every unclean thing, but most of them, and the worst ones.

These are failures of a genuine church (no church is perfect) as opposed to continued degradations in a false one.

Evangelical · 09-08-2016, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I did read them, and pray. You know what the Lord said? "Look at these verses. Does it say,

Or does it say

What does it say?"

I replied, "It says the first one, Lord, not the second."

Then the Lord said, "Then don't worry about it. You have enough problems already."

I know God did not tell you that, I don't believe you. The topic was denominations not the ground of the church. And we don't believe that those in denominations are not saved.

Evangelical · 09-08-2016, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do...

The Bible is against denominations which are factions:
1 Cor 11:19 For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

A denomination is a faction. There's no other way to describe it. You cannot have half a faction or half a unity.

Evangelical · 09-08-2016, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

We get it, we get it. What you don't get is this is your fetish, not the Bible's. Get over it.

Besides, doesn't your wife have a first name? That's her personal name. But it's not yours. Oops. There goes your analogy. Why not just consider the names of churches as "first names," for identification? Or should all wives stop using first names and just call themselves "Mrs. So-and-So?"

In western society not so long ago, people referred to themselves as Mr and Mrs. They still do today on letters, bank accounts etc. To use first names was considered rude. Oops there's goes your logic

.

testallthings · 09-08-2016, 09:56 PM

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

James 2:10

Evangelical · 09-08-2016, 10:10 PM

We can learn a lot by considering the chronological order of the NT books:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/resou...testament.html

James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone. Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God.

Consider the person of James himself. James as Jesus's half-brother was basically a second-class apostle who was not an authority in the church. See John 7:5. For this reason Peter refers to Paul's letters, not James.

James was really written to the Jews who had been dispersed amidst the Roman Empire during a time of intense persecution. Instructions for Gentiles were different (Acts 21).

Nell · 09-08-2016, 11:34 PM

Because the "6 year CRI study" has been referenced on this thread as "authoritative", there is a great deal of information about said "study" on this forum which should be considered.

On May 5, 2010 Thankful Jane posted an open letter to Buntain, Sady and Towle, as described below, including this rebuttal of "The 6 year CRI study" which was published in the CRI Journal saying "We Were Wrong"....basically to have labeled the LC a cult. Note that Buntain, Sady and Towle never acknowledged receipt of this open letter, much less responded to it. Perhaps Evangelical will read and respond to the question “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (After reading it, of course!) When you reference such a study as authoritative, as Evangelical has done, it is necessary to know more about the content of this "study."

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”

Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619

Thankful

Nell

09-08-2016, 11:59 PM

Evangelical wrote 'James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone. Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God. '
Latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone was not up to date because Paul had yet to write his epistles. You speaking for God that His revelation about salvation by grace alone has updates and outdates? You decide which are expired Word of God and which are inspired Word of God?
How was Paul saved? Was Paul not saved by salvation by grace alone before he wrote his epistles because the latest revelation from God was not yet updated?
Jesus words were older by date than James epistles. What say ya about Jesus words? Not the latest update? expired Word of God than the inspired Word of God?

Jesus said:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
*
You think these words are outdated and expired?
*

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Because the "6 year CRI study" has been referenced on this thread as "authoritative", there is a great deal of information about said "study" on this forum which should be considered.

On May 5, 2010 Thankful Jane posted an open letter to Buntain, Sady and Towle, as described below, including this complete and comprehensive rebuttal/debunking of "The 6 year CRI study" which was published in the CRI Journal saying "We Were Wrong"....basically to have labeled the LC a cult. Note that Buntain, Sady and Towle never acknowledged receipt of this open letter, much less responded to it. Perhaps Evangelical will read and respond to the question “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (After reading it, of course!) When you reference such a study as authoritative, as Evangelical has done, it is necessary to know more about the content of this "study."

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”

Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619

Thankful

Nell

Thanks Nell.

A rational and logical approach to this would be to consider two things.

Firstly, the 6 year CRI study was by a number of people, independent of the local churches, with no vested interest to either malign or promote the local churches. In fact, for the CRI to reverse their position on this was a big thing to do. They moved from a negative position to a positive one, with no doubt some potential damage to their reputation. Can we say the same about the one author of this article?

Secondly, the author is seen to be profiting from her experience in the local churches by selling a number of books about it. This indicates she does not have a neutral and unbiased position in this, so can we trust it?

These two pieces of fact weight the evidence towards the CRI study than towards this letter in my opinion. 6 year study by independents, versus 1 long letter with various claims that have not been independently verified and who profits from some books about it. Hmmm.

This is not to say that what she writes is wrong, only that based on the evidence it seems more doubtful than the CRI study.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thanks Nell.

A rational and logical approach to this would be to consider two things.

Firstly, the 6 year CRI study was by a number of people, independent of the local churches, with no vested interest to either malign or promote the local churches. In fact, for the CRI to reverse their position on this was a big thing to do. They moved from a negative position to a positive one, with no doubt some potential damage to their reputation. Can we say the same about the one author of this article?

This is not to say that what she writes is wrong, only that based on the evidence it seems more doubtful than the CRI study.

Another rational approach would be to consider that the CRI did not study the social aspect of the LCM, but only the doctrinal aspect--the Trinity, deification and so forth. There was no significant attention given to thought control, isolation, quarantining, purges, threats, arranged marriages, personality cult, etc. They did talk about some about the LCM one-true-church claims. But they compared it to the Catholic Church's claims. Having been in both the RC and the LCM, equating Catholic claims of being the one true church to the LCM claims is like comparing a kitten to a tiger. It's just a misleading idea.

The bottom line is CRI did not do its homework regarding the abusive social aspect of the LCM. They did not interview any former members. They did not seek to see if anyone was damaged by the LCM. The Bereans message board existed when the study was active. I'm sure CRI was aware of it. But they didn't reach out to anyone, and as Nell said they ignored all correspondence from people concerned that the study was misleading.

At the very least that's bad research, and it should make any thinking person suspicious of shady dealings.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In western society not so long ago, people referred to themselves as Mr and Mrs. They still do today on letters, bank accounts etc. To use first names was considered rude. Oops there's goes your logic

.

If that's the basis of your argument then I feel pretty confident where I stand.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible is against denominations which are factions:
1 Cor 11:19 For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

A denomination is a faction. There's no other way to describe it. You cannot have half a faction or half a unity.

The idea that the LCM is not a faction is ridiculous. Faction means dissent which means disagreement and implies contentious disagreement.

The LCM is one of the most contentious disagreers out there.

Sorry, the LCM doesn't just get to claim they are the "home base" against which everyone else is dissenting just because the LCM has "no name" and is "on the ground." It doesn't work that way. By claiming you are the IT everyone needs to join you are making yourself the biggest faction. Paul rebuked those who said in a factious way they were "of Christ." That's exactly what the LCM does. (1 Cor 1:12)

What you need to understand, Evangelical, is that we are all the church, and none of us gets to say our little group is the one everyone else needs to join up with to realize oneness. To make that claim is itself extremely factious. To be factious is not just to divide from others, it can also mean to insist everyone be like you. None of us have the right to expect everyone join us and to discredit everyone who doesn't! Insisting everyone join you based on your view of oneness is no different than insisting everyone join you based on your view of baptism. It's just as factious, maybe more so.

Yes, we all need to work toward oneness and cooperation with the rest of the Body. If you look around you can see that happening like it never has in centuries. But for your little group to insist it is the IT everyone needs to line up with, well, it ought to be obvious how factious that really is. Your are "of Christ" more than anyone, you say? Paul rebuked those who made that claim.

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The idea that the LCM is not a faction is ridiculous. Faction means dissent which means disagreement and implies contentious disagreement.

The LCM is one of the most contentious disagreers out there.

Sorry, the LCM doesn't just get to claim they are the "home base" against which everyone else is dissenting just because the LCM has "no name" and is "on the ground." It doesn't work that way. By claiming you are the IT everyone needs to join you are making yourself the biggest faction. Paul rebuked those who said in a factious way they were "of Christ." That's exactly what the LCM does. (1 Cor 1:12)

That is factually incorrect.

The footnote on 1 Corinthians 1:12 says "To say "I am of Christ" is divisive".

We do not say we are "of Christ".

That would be the Churches of Christ, which is a denomination.

We are taught not to say we are of this or that, as this is being natural and not spiritual.

So once again you show your lack of understanding of the local church.

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, the LCM doesn't just get to claim they are the "home base" against which everyone else is dissenting just because the LCM has "no name" and is "on the ground." It doesn't work that way. By claiming you are the IT everyone needs to join you are making yourself the biggest faction. Paul rebuked those who said in a factious way they were "of Christ." That's exactly what the LCM does. (1 Cor 1:12)

That is factually incorrect.

The footnote on 1 Corinthians 1:12 says "To say "I am of Christ" is divisive".

We do not say we are "of Christ".

That would be the Churches of Christ, which is a denomination.

We are taught not to say we are of this or that, as this is being natural and not spiritual.

I agree that we are all the church. As I have stated many times before, we believe every believer in our locality is in the same church. So we believe that "we are all the church". Also, we do not insist that anyone join us. We are free to come and go as we please.

So once again you show your lack of understanding of the local church.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is factually incorrect.

The footnote on 1 Corinthians 1:12 says "To say "I am of Christ" is divisive".

We do not say we are "of Christ".

That would be the Churches of Christ, which is a denomination.

We are taught not to say we are of this or that, as this is being natural and not spiritual.

So once again you show your lack of understanding of the local church.

Evangelical, I was in the LCM for years. I understand it better than you do. Please don't patronize me.

What you show is a lack of understanding both of yourselves and the Scriptures. Paul is addressing a factious attitude, not the use of specific words. Don't you get it? It's the attitude he is addressing, not the words "I am of Christ."

There is nothing wrong in principle with saying "I am of Christ." The problem comes in with what you mean when you say it. These people who said it were implying there were of Christ in comparison to others. They were expressing they were of Christ in the correct way and others were not. That's exactly what the LCM believes!

In other words even though being of Christ is correct, their attitude was to be of Christ divisively. It wasn't the claim, it was the bad attitude. That's what the LCM has.

Are you a Christian? Saying you are Christian is the same as saying you are of Christ. We all say we are of Christ in one way or another. The problem isn't with the saying. It's the attitude you express when you say it or anything else.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 06:46 AM

The bottom line, Evangelical, is you think you are correct according to the letter. Well, maybe. Maybe not. Either way, you are wrong in spirit. That's what you for some reason can't accept. You think you have all your doctrinal ducks in a row, so you are safe, and can condemn others any way you like. You think you are rich and in need of nothing. But....

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical, I was in the LCM for years. I understand it better than you do. Don't patronize me.

We do not say " I am of this or that" because we do not have this attitude either, to do so would be natural and not spiritual. Instead we simply prefer to call on the name of Jesus and focus on Christ. We believe it is equally as bad to be for someone or for something than to be against it, to be for Christ is positive but it is natural. We aim to be "in Christ" and that is the difference. We are in Christ but the denominations are not in Christ, we focus on Christ, talk about Christ, pray to Christ, call on His name, praise Christ etc. In the denominations they focus on services, programs, rote prayers, bible studies, activities, etc. In some denominations you rarely hear the word Christ mentioned.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do not say " I am of this or that" because we do not have this attitude either, to do so would be natural and not spiritual. Instead we simply prefer to call on the name of Jesus and focus on Christ.

If you truly had this attitude you would not also hold the belief that your little group is "God's unique move," "God's best" and that everyone needs to join you.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We are in Christ but the denominations are not in Christ.

What you are in is delusion.

And you guys wonder why people think you are a cult.

Simply amazing.

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you truly had this attitude you would not also hold the belief that your little group is "God's unique move," "God's best" and that everyone needs to join you.

Never heard the term "God's best", God's unique move, yes in relation to the purpose God has for us. We do not say that everyone needs to join us. It is an open invitation.

Cal · 09-09-2016, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Never heard the term "God's best", God's unique move, yes in relation to the purpose God has for us. We do not say that everyone needs to join us. It is an open invitation.

This shows your ignorance of your history, dude.

What locality are you in?

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

What you are in is delusion.

And you guys wonder why people think you are a cult.

Simply amazing.

You just said that Christ is delusion, wow.

Nell · 09-09-2016, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thanks Nell.

A rational and logical approach to this would be to consider two things.

Firstly, the 6 year CRI study was by a number of people, independent of the local churches, with no vested interest to either malign or promote the local churches. In fact, for the CRI to reverse their position on this was a big thing to do. They moved from a negative position to a positive one, with no doubt some potential damage to their reputation. Can we say the same about the one author of this article?

You're welcome, Evangelical.

Perhaps the CRI research team was independent of the Local Churches, but they were NOT independent of Hank and the CRI...were they? So, there was "one" sister plus 72 Christian leaders cited in the rebuttal article.

Just so you know, JCA's rep with the LC is permanently shot. They won't even talk to her? Why? She wrote a book about her experiences with the Local Church leadership. She told the truth. The truth often "hurts" or is in LC terms "negative". If you want all "positive", stay away from the Bible. It is naive to think that all human experience MUST BE "POSITIVE" as defined by LC leadership.

(Elliot) Miller‘s whole article is a response to an "Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the 'Local Churches‘" (Open Letter by the 74), which contains criticisms of the LC made by 74 Christian scholars and ministry leaders. He responds to the following matters brought into question by the open letter: The LC‘s doctrine of God and doctrine of man (orthodoxy); the LC‘s views on the legitimacy of other churches; and the LC‘s history of filing lawsuits against fellow Christians.

Quote:

Secondly, the author is seen to be profiting from her experience in the local churches by selling a number of books about it. This indicates she does not have a neutral and unbiased position in this, so can we trust it?

Does the LSM still sell books? I believe the LSM is seen to be profiting from the work of others... . The one book published by JCA (her own story) has been a free PDF download for several years. I haven't seen the P&L statement for this book, but I feel confident the LSM isn't in danger of JCA's sales dwarfing its own---especially since it's available at no cost.

Quote:

These two pieces of fact weight the evidence towards the CRI study than towards this letter in my opinion. 6 year study by independents, versus 1 long letter with various claims that have not been independently verified and who profits from some books about it. Hmmm.

This is not to say that what she writes is wrong, only that based on the evidence it seems more doubtful than the CRI study.

What evidence? You have presented no "evidence." Your case is that two big publishing companies "win" just because they are ... big. The story of David and Goliath comes to mind.

JCA has 30 years of experiencing the beliefs and practices of the Local Churches/LSM as opposed to the six years of "research" which conveniently leaves out the contra of its research topic which skews the entire "study".

A rational and logical approach would be to answer the question: "Can the Local Church Leadership say "We were wrong?" As of today, 9/9/2016, the answer is still "no".

Referring to the controversy in the LC in the 1980's JCA states:

With an oblique reference to two Bible verses, Miller implies that ongoing sin among believers was responsible for these controversies, and that this is to be expected in any Christian work. In this way, he set aside any other significance these controversies might have. After Miller states that these matters are outside the scope of this issue of the Journal, he and Hanegraaff move ahead to give glowing conclusions and heartfelt recommendations of the LC. Yet, as their footnote shows, they did this without disclosing any particulars of what they found when they looked into these matters, in whatever way they did. (One might reasonably ask why CRI does not use the "biblical doctrine of sin‘s ongoing presence among believers" to dismiss the behavior of those who criticize, question, or label the LC, just as they dismissed these controversies. Then, CRI and the LC could simply drop their whole argument.)

So, the CRI has scripturally "excused" the Local Churches for sins common to all, but fails to extend the same to those of us who dare to speak the truth about the Local Churches. My suggestion is that we level the playing field for all. It's not enough that a "CRI 6-year study" exists. This proves nothing, except that the deck was stacked for the LC from the beginning.

Nell

Koinonia · 09-09-2016, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Never heard the term "God's best", God's unique move, yes in relation to the purpose God has for us. We do not say that everyone needs to join us. It is an open invitation.

Hymn #1297: "This is the Lord's recovery, this is His very best!"

Evangelical · 09-09-2016, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Hymn #1297: "This is the Lord's recovery, this is His very best!"

Thankyou, I never heard that hymn either actually. It is clear to me that it says the recovery is His best, not that we are better than anyone else.
There is no teaching that says we are his best and better than anyone else.

08-31-2016, 09:15 PM	#8
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Nee positively defines what the church is in his book "Normal Christian Church Life". The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name. It is important to realize that the ground of locality in no way implies a perfect church. The churches mentioned in Revelation were genuine local churches but all but one had problems. "there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church. Within a city are not merely "multiple assemblies" as some here claim. Christians don't just "go to a building" they go to a building with a name, that was founded by a particular organization, there are often two or more buildings on the same street, and they don't talk to or coordinate with each other (as if they are completely different religions). It is as if they do not have the same Father, Christ and Spirit. The situation is different from the "multiple assemblies" of the Bible. Furthermore, is the situation of degraded Christianity. The book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola Author and George Barna reveals how much of what is accepted as Christianity today is actually paganism. It was the degraded Catholic church that caused Luther and others to separate from her, and so on and so forth until Christ returns.

09-02-2016, 04:53 AM	#18
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Are you really following "Christ alone"? Watchman Nee was highly influenced by EM Barber, who held to Keswick theology and numerous others including Roman Catholic mystical quietists. If you hold to Nee's theology you are essentially a Keswick theologian. But suppose you reject Nee and Lee and choose to just "follow Christ". It sounds noble, it sounds spiritual, but let's see for a moment if that is even possible. We are still a follower of someone. Everyone's a follower of someone, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to read the Bible with a neutral and unbiased mind. Born in America? Your reading of the Bible will be skewed by your American worldview. Are you African? You may interpret some parables of Jesus differently to someone would in the West, as your ideas of the family and social structure may be different. All of these things skew our interpretation of the Bible. What is your natural disposition? This will influence which Bible verses "stand out" to you the most, and upon which ones you like to dwell. What version of the Bible did you read? King James? He ordered that the scribes change some of the words in the bible to better reflect his views of his church, the church of England. They made a new version of the Bible to suit their purposes and desires. Do you believe in salvation by grace alone? You follow Martin Luther. Luther wrote some harsh things against the Jews: "On the Jews and Their Lies" "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …" "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed." "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them." "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …" "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …" "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …" "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …" Believe in total depravity, free grace? God's sovereignty? You follow Calvin. Calvin condemned a man to death: “On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva" Read Paul's letter to the Corinthians? You follow Paul. Read the Gospel of Luke? You follow Luke and his spin on the gospel, as opposed to Matthew. Accept the New Testament Canon? You follow the so many men who chose what should go in that. Have an English version of the Bible? Others decided how it should be translated for you, you didn't get the choice. Believe in the Trinity? - chances are you were "brainwashed" to believe in that by others, or you would be labelled a "heretic" and cast out of your mainstream denomination if you didn't. Try to prove you got it from the Bible? Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. The original said: With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152) Believe in the Nicene Creed? Constantine and early Roman Catholic fathers in 325 AD wrote that for you to believe today. Jesus never wrote or said it. Bible chapter and verse numbering - your view is skewed by this too. Sometimes it is incorrect and distorts the context. A person who knows Hebrew well might tell you. You may not have books written by Luther, Calvin, King James, on your shelves, but it is their thoughts and philosophies that influence your thinking today and those that came before. In addition to the thoughts and philosophies of your society, your family, friends, and your own random thoughts and imaginations as well. When you sit with your Bible alone and think you are getting the pure unadulterated Word of God and becoming a better theologian because the Spirit is magically giving you all of the "sound teaching" that others cannot give you, better think again.

09-02-2016, 08:55 AM	#22
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Are you really following "Christ alone"? I assume you started this thread as a response to my points about being a follower of Lee rather than Christ. Look there is nothing wrong in principle with following a teacher or being influenced by one. The problem comes in when you don't feel the freedom to follow the leading of the Lord when it contradicts the teacher. I mentioned this specifically about the LCM trying to influence people not to leave the movement. When you believe that the Lord would never lead someone to lead the LCM the fact is you put following Lee and the LCM leaders above following Christ. Because whether you like or not the Lord could lead someone to leave your movement. So if you are responding to me you missed my point.

09-02-2016, 11:58 AM	#26
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Just by the threads title "Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship", my last visit to Southern California in 2014, there was a HWFMR that caught my attention. Basically fellowship is only according to "the ministry". "The ministry" as we know is a coded word meaning LSM publications. That being said, LSM is the basis for fellowship. Where I live in Renton, the local church won't fellowship apart from the ministry? Would they fellowship with other assemblies? I'd venture to say not. To fellowship apart from LSM would require a locality to lose their uniqueness and be just like all other Christian assemblies. Thus the thread's title is appropriate, "always in the church, but not always in fellowship". __________________ "Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts, even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience."- Franklin D. Roosevelt

09-02-2016, 12:24 PM	#28
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren (Moved from other thread). I have no problem with a group not caring to take a name, or meeting as the church in a city. What I have a problem with is when they say other groups are not the church because they don't meet that way. The Bible doesn't give us enough information or ground to do this. This is why the LCM is in error. There is one church in every city, just like there is one universal church. But we don't have to meet "as" the church in the city, nor call ourselves the church in the city to be the church in the city, at least part of it. And we don't lose our standing as the church in the city if we meet under the name of "Hyde Park Community Church" or whatever. The Bible never says any group meeting in the Lord's name can "lose its standing" as the church. Like I said there is one church in the city. There are also many churches. Just as the Bible mentions the church in the city and it mentions the churches in the homes. We are all part of the church in the city. We can't lose that standing. The Lord can come and "remove the lampstand," but we can't remove it, unless, I guess, we all move away. The LCM model jumps to conclusions and take liberties with its own interpretations. They assume because there is one church in the city that everyone needs follow one official set of elders, of course theirs. But the LCM cannot say how those elders gain their status. The best they can say is they are appointed by an apostle. But that's just kicking the can down the road because how do you determine who is the apostle? The LCM assumed it was Lee, which was just that, an assumption. Now they assume it is the Blendeds, another assumption. So based on blind assumptions the LCM has decided that only their churches are valid and all other manifestations of the church in a city are invalid. These assumptions, based on a reading of the Bible which is rejected by 99.99% of the Body of Christ, simply cannot support the profound and grave implications they lead to--that 99.99% of Christians are not meeting "as the church" and therefore do not have the standing of the church. Further when a group does meet as the church in the city, but does not follow LSM, the LCM has never recognized it, at least not after it became clear the group was not going to submit to their sway. Every existing group that the LSM-led church has encountered which has not joined their movement has been declared not genuine. If this isn't a hierarchical, not to mention shady, organization then what is it? The bottom line is this simply cannot be the way the Lord operates. It's just another version of Catholicism, where a central command center decides who's in and who's out. The Lord could never start anything fresh with this kind of standard. The thing would ossify with the entrenched, unaccountable leadership. That's where the LCM is now. If God attempts a "recovery" there's no way it could happen with them. Did you know the Exclusive Brethren still call themselves "the recovery" too. When will people learn?

08-31-2016, 03:23 AM	#1
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are always in the church, the Body of Christ. Being in prison did not stop the apostle Paul from being in the church. The church is something spiritual and mysterious and not confined to the four walls of a building or an organization. God sees every believer, and considers them all part of His one Body, the church. Religion has made us believe that we are not in church unless we go somewhere on a Sunday. This is far from the truth. Whenever a person accepts Christ they are made part of God's family. But we also must be wise and not accept fellowship with everyone. We should not fellowship with those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11. - sexual immorality - greed - idolatry - slander - drunkards - con artists and extortioners

08-31-2016, 02:41 PM	#5
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Wherever you go Whatever you do Whatever you say Say, say, say Say it with love. (couldn't resist the similarity to the Moodies in that first post) __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

09-02-2016, 01:06 PM	#30
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren And there is some evidence that the letter to Ephesus (Paul's) did not bear a name in the beginning, but that it was understood to have been to Ephesus, or at least the churches in and surrounding it, so it was added later. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

09-02-2016, 01:45 PM	#31
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren I recall a movie where Dustin Hoffman played an out-of-work actor. He went to an audition. After his reading the conversation went something like this: Director: "Thank you. But we're looking for someone shorter." Hoffman: "I can be shorter. I'm wearing lifts!" Director: "We're looking for someone younger." Hoffman: "I can be younger!" Director: "We're looking for someone else." The way the LCM treats any group which happens to actually meet as the church in a city before the LCM got there is similar: LCM: "You need to meet as the church in the city." Church: "We do!" LCM: "You can't have a name." Church: "We don't!" LCM: "You have to receive all believers." Church: "We do!" LCM: "You have to have fellowship with the other churches." Church: "We are willing to fellowship with any church." LCM: "No, we mean our churches. And by fellowship we mean come to all our conferences, teach only our doctrines, sell only our materials and obey our headquarters in California." Church: "Uh, we don't think we should have to do that." LCM: "Then you are not a genuine church. " The LCM then feels free to set up its own "city church" in that city, and ignore and discredit the other group, calling it a sect, etc, etc. This kind of thing has happened so many times it would make you puke. The LCM local ground doctrine is nothing but a means to discredit all other groups and set itself up as the one true manifestation of God in a city. It is a means of control, exclusion and division, not unity.

09-02-2016, 04:31 PM	#34
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren I want someone to establish the whole idea of "ground" by reference only to things actually found in the Bible. I find it quite interesting that the word "church" (well, actually the Greek or another local term) that meant "meeting." And we almost all agree that there is an alternate use of the term that means something besides just the meeting or assembly, but also the universal collection of all those who would constitute the members of the separate assemblies. So we have a word that we claim for purposes of the Bible to have somewhat ambiguous meaning. It could refer only to an assembly. Or it could refer to everyone that is qualified to be in any of the assemblies. And maybe, depending on use, to also refer to all who qualify within less than all assemblies but more than a single assembly. (I do note that Paul referred to the recipients of another letter to be the "assemblies" in Galatia. No cities mentioned. Not sure there is ever a clear delineation of cities in that region.) The point is that we have overlapping use of singular and plural to refer to the Christians in various places (as well as all Christians). I believe there is a general reference to the fact that the church grew. Not referring to any city or region (and I could be wrong and it was strictly in Jerusalem prior to the spread). There is ambiguity as to the coverage of the word when viewed from the standpoint of a defined boundary. The only truly meaningful thing about the word is that it is with reference to the gathering of the believers in Christ. Or alternately to the general condition of being among those who are believers in Christ. In effect, the NT refers to many believers either as believers, or as the church. And it also refers to distinct assemblies as the church. It refers to some groups meeting in a house in or around a major city as the church in that house (Rome? maybe Laodicea?) and not by reference to any city. So finding some references to churches by reference to the city does not carry the weight of a clear prescription. Even the ambiguous one in Revelation. And this whole thing of ground. Define it. Not by examples. Not by metaphors. No "it's like . . . ." Let the scripture define it without presumptive overlay. Without declaring that something with multiple meanings can only be understood with the one that gets to your position. By the way. If I make reference to the church in Dallas, I would be referring to all those who claim to believe in Christ within the city. And within the county, and probably within the general area. At least the metropolitan area (the entire DFW area). I am not living in Dallas. But a letter by someone like Paul to the church Dallas would be understood to be to the called-out ones in the vicinity. If we would not place such a harsh restriction on the nature of the church, why do we think that such an indirect thing as the introduction to a few letters is meant to do exactly that despite not even abiding by it in all cases? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

09-02-2016, 05:44 PM	#41
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren If we want a logical and rational approach to this, we only need to count the number of times it refers to city, house or region as church or churches. The most likely answer will be the one that has the majority. Here is the rational and logical evidence I get from doing word searches on Biblehub.com of the phrases "church in", "churches in", "church of", and "churches of". Then I count them whether they refer to a city, house or region. Number of times the phrase "church in" refers to a city: 12 Number of times the phrase "church in" refers to a house: 3 Number of times the phrase "churches in" refers to a city: 0 Number of times the phrase "churches in" refers to a region: 9 Number of times the phrase "church of" refers to a city: 7 Number of times the phrase "church of" refers to a house: 0 Number of times the phrase "churches of" refers to a city: 0 Number of times the phrase "churches of" refers to a region: 5 Then we just add them: Number of times the phrase "church of" or "church in" refers to a city: 19 Number of times the phrase "church of" or "church in" refers to a house: 3 Number of times the phrase "churches of" or "churches in" refers to a city: 0 Number of times the phrase "churches of" or "churches in" refers to a region: 14 So 19 out of 22 times, church refers to a city, or 86% (rounded). 3 times out of 22, church refers to a house, or 14% (rounded). 0 out of 14 times, churches refers to a city, or 0%. 14 out of 14 times, churches refers to a region, or 100%. This shows that a church is much more likely to be a city than a house (86% compared to 14%). This evidence is against those churches (baptist, house churches etc) which claim a church size smaller than a city. The plural "churches" is never used in relation to a city, only regions. It also shows that a church is never bigger than a city (100% to 0%). This rules out most denominations, which claim a size greater than a city.

09-03-2016, 02:37 AM	#56
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Regulation versus Legalism Do we know the difference between regulation and legalism? Knowing and practicing the difference makes the difference between gladly obeying God with relative ease and striving to obey God with gritted teeth. The majority of Christian churches today express authority and obedience as this: God has given us some rules to follow, teaches you what they are. Tells you to try your best to follow them Don't worry if you fail, repent, pick yourself up and try, try again. But this doesn't work. There are many Christians stuck in this never ending cycle of religious zeal, trying to obey God, failing, repenting and trying again. This cycle is propagated by churches which do not know the effective solution. They can only teach rules and laws without providing the solution for how to obey. On the other hand there are Christian churches and groups which give up completely, they have no rules. They claim to experience or pursue the Spirit, yet anyone can do or behave whatever they feel like. The problem is really a lack of law and obedience, but is this law obeyed by regulation by life, or is it legalism?. Regulation is necessary for order in the church. Regulation prevents chaos. Regulation is godly and righteous. We can think of regulation as like a Voltage regulator, which is meant to keep the Voltage constant. Regulation will keep our Christian life constant, with fewer tries and failures, ups and downs. Regulation will also help us be regular in the sense of regular prayer times, regular bible study, and regularly attending church. We will no longer do this things only when we feel like it, or when we have obtained enough religious zeal. regulation means "a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority." "the action or process of regulating or being regulated." Christians are under authority. As Christians we are under God's authority, the Supreme authority. We are also under the authority God appoints over us in the church. We are under the governing authority God has put over us in society. Wives are under the authority of their husbands, and children their parents (Ephesians 5:23-33). Christ has authority over the Church. The apostles authority still remains today - whenever we heed the words of Paul in the Scriptures we are coming under his apostolic authority, and Christs. But is that authority by regulation or legalism? Legalism, is the concept of "rule and conquer" by law, reward and punishment. It is about putting law above life. Legalism is hard to bear, because there is no life. Legalism is to try and fail, be rewarded or be punished. Many think that legalism is the way to be regulated, but this is not so. If we want to regulate electricity we cannot demand that it regulate itself, and then punish it when it does not. We need to install a "voltage regulator" to obtain a constant voltage. Thankfully God has provided us with such a "voltage regulator". It is the law of the Spirit of life. The Christian has law, but this law is one of Spirit and life. Romans 8:2 "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death". Genuine regulation is according to life, not rule of law. Regulation by life can be likened to the flow of blood in our bodies. Our hearts regulate our bodies by pumping blood. If our heart did not beat regularly, our bodily functions would be in chaos. If our heart was irregular, it brings chaos to the rest of our body, and brings anxiety to our minds. Our bodies do not do as they please, they are regulated by the flow of blood in our body. In a similar way, the Holy Spirit as the spiritual "life blood" in us, regulates us individually. The Holy Spirit also, in the Body of Christ, regulates the church. The flow of the Spirit in every member is regulating them to obey the authorities. A genuine Spirit-led life is a regulated life, not one of many tries and failures or lawlessness. Regulation by the Holy Spirit, the law of life, produces harmony, normality and freedom from chaos. It is pleasant and not so hard to bear. Even though the expected righteous requirements for Christians exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), for the Christian it is not a burden because it is achieved by the life in us. This is the genuine "freedom in Christ". Just as an elephant does not need to try to be an elephant because it has an elephant's life, a Christian does not need to try to be a Christian because they have Christ's life. A Christian who tries to be a Christian without Christ's life, will ultimately fail. But with Christ's life it is possible to be victorious. It is for this reason that it is worthwhile to practice to live and experience Christ's life, by calling the Lord's name, praying, reading the Word, fellowship, listening to and obeying Christ. Over time you will experience inward regulation by the Spirit of life.

09-03-2016, 05:53 AM	#63
NewManLiving Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 148	Re: Are you really following "Christ alone"? Our dear brother Evangelical forgets that the Church in Rome was once a so-called local church. She became corrupt and is now considered by many to be an abomination. So you see the Lord can remove a Lampstand. Regardless of how one views the doctrine of locality, the LSM local churches are strictly ministry or business churches that support the LSM organization. Those genuine local churches that disagree with the Blendeds, regardless of the reason are immediately censored. This is NOT the New Testament pattern. Paul did not run his business off the Churches. When all of Asia left him he did not run about trying to sue them and cut them off. He still called them churches. He never considered himself to be The Minister of the Age with his own system of churches orbiting around him. He did not disparage the ministries of the other Apostles. The list of differences goes on and on. By the way, our brother Paul had a very personal side to him as well; "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings being conformed to His death". Paul's goal was Christ alone - to forsake all for the prize. Last edited by NewManLiving; 09-03-2016 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Misspelling

09-03-2016, 07:58 AM	#70
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Has anyone ever thought it is interesting that in all Paul's letters to city churches, and even Jesus's messages to city churches, that the names of the leaders are never specified? Paul surely knew who were leaders in the churches he planted. So why doesn't he ever address them directly by name? Even further, in all of Paul's writings to churches is to the whole church in general, he never writes in a way where he is talking to leaders. And unless you believe Hebrews (13:17) was written by Paul, there is no place where he instructs members to obey leaders, or really talks about them much at all. Outside of the pastoral epistles (Timothy I II, Titus), which were written to other apostles, he doesn't address leadership much, and even there he does not speak of obedience to leaders. Peter writes about leaders, but he focuses on the humility and servant attitude of leaders. He doesn't instruct members about obedience to leaders. (1 Pet 5:2-3). One would think that if city churches were in principle to be led by one group of leaders, in the model of the LCM, that this leadership aspect would be very crucial and that Paul would address it clearly in his letters to the city churches. But he doesn't. He never does. In fact, Paul talks more about obeying secular leaders (Rom 13) than he does about obeying church leaders! The whole picture is something very different that what is painted by the LCM. In the LCM everything revolves around submitting to the leaders. Paul emphasizes unity, but he doesn't cast things in a way that suggest the unity is around the leaders. It's always around Christ. And leaders are always portrayed as servants, not lords. Finally, why does Paul not address the book of Romans to the church in Rome? Why does he address it to "all who are in Rome." Why does he leave out reference to the church in Rome but then refers later to "the church that meets in their house" (16:5) obviously referring to a subset of all the Christians in Rome?

09-04-2016, 04:56 AM	#79
NewManLiving Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 148	Re: Are you really following "Christ alone"? The Lord is the judge. He gives only one reason and that is to leave our first love. That could apply to any assembly. Many believe that the seven churches represent the general condition of the church at the end of this age. My statement was meant to generate discussion. One could argue that the Lord did not say this to the church in Thyatira. Removal of a Lampstand appears to be a matter of first love. On the other hand establishing of a Lampstand has nothing to do with LSM or any other organization. That is also determined by the Lord, and more than likely the determining factor is first love.

09-04-2016, 08:05 AM	#83
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does? What if I live right outside the boundaries of the city. If the city church is a reality in the black and white way the LCM sees it, when I leave the city am I no longer a part of that church? Say I live between two adjacent cities but in neither one, which church am I a part of in reality? If I live in the country and meet with a group of Christians can we not be a church? And finally, do you think God really worries about any of this? Or is rather speaking of the church in the city just a way He references his people as a group relevant to the region in question? This seems to suggest that the black and white legalism the LCM insists upon with the city church is untenable. Yes, in one sense there is one church in a city, just like, in a sense, there is one church on Earth, and in the same sense there was one church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in Acts 9:31. But the Bible also shows that within these city churches there were smaller churches. The Bible never uses the term the "churches in" a city specifically. But it doesn't have to. It does indicate that a smaller church within a city church can exist. And if one can exist then it follows that more than one can. I'm not of the school than believes that a "church" is necessarily a practical assembly. The Bible uses the term both in a practical and more abstract way. "Church" in Ephesians 1-3 is a more abstract usage of the word. I believe that the church in a city is also a more abstract usage, or can be. There is no compelling reason to believe that the church in the city need be organized "practically" under one eldership as the LCM says, nor that it cannot be comprised of smaller more practical churches, house churches, community churches, etc, which can have names for identification. Meeting separately is not necessarily indicative of division. Even the large LCM churches have multiple meeting places. And the Bible never says that a church having a name indicates division. Divisiveness is a heart matter. You can have no name and insist you are doing everything right and still be divisive, as we've clearly seen with you-know-who.

09-04-2016, 07:09 PM	#94
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Evangelical! "An assembly of people, which meet outside of a denomination as "the church in New York", and yet does not believe in Christ, does not have the "foundation of Christ". These have the ground of locality but do not have the foundation of Christ. " The church in NY does not believe in Christ? You mean: does not believe in Lee?

09-04-2016, 09:57 PM	#100
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Who is the real cult? Every Sunday, in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England and (I believe, I could be wrong) Lutheran churches. The church priest conducts a fixed and pre-arranged order of service. One of which the majority of speaking is done by the priest, with their assistance, and perhaps the reading of a bible verse or two by a member of the congregation and church announcements. The congregation reads the same things out of the same one book every Sunday (minor variations to be sure). They hardly use the Bible, only the words written in the prayer book. There is no prophesying, or freedom for any member to interrupt the service so as to speak their mind or share what the Lord has told them. Everyone speaks in rote unison, sits or stands according to the priestly directions. Only the priest can handle the bread and wine, to do so normally requires extensive theological training. If you disagree with anything, or want to change anything, there is very little you can do. Contrast that with the LC, where there is no order of service or prayer book there are no priests, any believer can handle the bread and wine. Anyone can speak at any time. Supposedly the LC is a cult, and yet it allows more freedoms than in the other churches that you say are not cults? Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

09-05-2016, 07:12 AM	#103
DistantStar Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: South Africa Posts: 127	Re: Who is the real cult? You are setting up a strawman. You are assuming that cults are what those sects are. Then you proceed to show how the LC denomination is not like them, and therefore not a cult. Perhaps it's the other away around, don't you think? Perhaps the "evil" rituals of the Catholics and Orthodox and Lutheran churches are normal while the LC is the cult. Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not saying they are or are not. I'm just questioning your reasoning here. Besides, compare yourself with normal evangelicals. We are all here (as far as I know) not Catholics or Orthodox Christians. None of us ascribe to their rituals. The debate is not between Catholocism and the LC (although I see few differences). The debate is between normal evangelical churches and the LC. This is a red herring designed to divert us into defending things we don't believe in. __________________ There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

09-05-2016, 08:41 AM	#113
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Always in the Church, but not always in fellowship with the brethren Again, I think it's an error to seek to define specifically for everyone what theoretically is a genuine practical church and what isn't. And it's even worse to try to do it in practice. The Bible never says we are supposed to discern what are real churches. It's not our job to do that. But Nee felt like that's what he needed to do.* So he set out to create the definition. Again, he reminds me of Ayn Rand. She set out to define the nature of reality in a way that led to a life practice. She was a very smart woman and created something that seemed reasonable and pretty airtight. The problem is she made the same mistake Nee did. She pretended her assumptions were facts. She jumped to conclusions and pretended she wasn't jumping to conclusions. Nee did the same thing with the local ground, and with many of his other teachings, too. Human beings want things defined. Wouldn't it be great if we knew exactly what church is? Then we could know whether we are right, and just as importantly to fallen humans, when somebody else is wrong. But God is wise. He doesn't give us that kind of knowledge because he knows, as we all should know by now, that the church is not something based on outward practices. It's based on a mysterious reality God has created that we can't quite define. When we try to define it completely and pretend we have, we come up with something that is actually false. But being deceived that we have it defined, as Nee did, we proceed to beat others over the head with it, as the LCM, and unfortunately our friend Evangelical, does. God wished to protect us from that, which is why he didn't completely define how to do church, and so left us with the freedom to follow him and to honor those who do it differently. * Nee actually had an ulterior motive for doing this. He wanted to invalidate the foreign denominations that were dominating the Christian landscape in his native China. He wanted to break their bonds and the way to do it was to create an ecclesiology which diminished them.

09-06-2016, 12:41 AM	#128
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical BTW if anyone would like to consider home churches in a biblical one city per church model, there is this link: http://homechurchhelp.com/there-is-one-church-in-a-city

09-06-2016, 07:33 AM	#135
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,063	Whose church is it anyway? The more men try to define “church” and “do church right” the more elusive “church” becomes. Jesus said “I will build MY church” but fleshly men constantly get in his way. Ever since he said that, men began to try and figure it out, define it, regulate it, legislate it, assume authority over its members,…never being content just to “be” the church. Who is right? Who is wrong? Most likely, all are wrong. Here’s what Paul had to say to the Galatians who were struggling with the law: 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. … 13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. I’m pretty sure this point of view will not change the course of this discussion. I just think someone needed to say it. Nell

09-06-2016, 08:38 PM	#144
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What It's Really All About Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you." If the dogs are Christian or Jewish or Muslim, makes no difference, a dog is a dog, and a swine is a swine. We are not to waste time on them. We are to seek out, the "sons of peace" (Luke 10:6). Remember, it is God who grows the plants, we just tend to it. If the plant is not ready to be picked and used for God's kingdom, we leave it alone until it becomes ready.

09-07-2016, 12:04 PM	#154
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What It's Really All About James 4:2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not. compares these verses with Matt 7. Ye Lust, ye kill, covet and cannot obtain -- this is our dog and swine nature. 3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures. Matt 7 talks about "ask and you shall receive, but only after it talks about not giving what is holy to the dogs. The reason your prayers are not answered is because you are asking amiss. 11Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbor? This corresponds with "judge not lest ye be judged". Again, I would say that when you read James he brings you back to Jesus.

09-08-2016, 07:46 AM	#173
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: My Local Church Experience - And My Testimony Evangelical, First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do. Your logic is that the church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bride should take no name other than her husband's. Even though all wives have first names which are not their husband's names. But, also, husbands are supposed have only one wife, but there are multiple practical churches. So does that mean Christ has many brides? No, it means that the Bride is actually all the church's together. So, following your logic, unless a individual church is presuming to take a name that encompasses the whole Bride you shouldn't say the Bride is taking a name. My point is that your argument for no name is not only not a biblical command, it's full of holes logically. Now, if you want to privately believe this stuff, that's your business. But I can't believe you are trying to peddle it to others, let alone insist it's something that should be binding on us all. As aron said, Lee's model served one purpose: To discredit everyone else and convince his followers that they were the only real deal.

09-08-2016, 09:56 PM	#180
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10 __________________ TEST ALL THINGS, KEEP THE GOOD

09-08-2016, 10:10 PM	#181
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What It's Really All About We can learn a lot by considering the chronological order of the NT books: http://www.biblestudytools.com/resou...testament.html James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone. Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God. Consider the person of James himself. James as Jesus's half-brother was basically a second-class apostle who was not an authority in the church. See John 7:5. For this reason Peter refers to Paul's letters, not James. James was really written to the Jews who had been dispersed amidst the Roman Empire during a time of intense persecution. Instructions for Gentiles were different (Acts 21).

09-08-2016, 11:59 PM	#183
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Re: What It's Really All About Evangelical wrote 'James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone. Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God. ' Latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone was not up to date because Paul had yet to write his epistles. You speaking for God that His revelation about salvation by grace alone has updates and outdates? You decide which are expired Word of God and which are inspired Word of God? How was Paul saved? Was Paul not saved by salvation by grace alone before he wrote his epistles because the latest revelation from God was not yet updated? Jesus words were older by date than James epistles. What say ya about Jesus words? Not the latest update? expired Word of God than the inspired Word of God? Jesus said: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. * You think these words are outdated and expired? *

09-09-2016, 06:46 AM	#191
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: My Local Church Experience - And My Testimony The bottom line, Evangelical, is you think you are correct according to the letter. Well, maybe. Maybe not. Either way, you are wrong in spirit. That's what you for some reason can't accept. You think you have all your doctrinal ducks in a row, so you are safe, and can condemn others any way you like. You think you are rich and in need of nothing. But....

09-09-2016, 07:59 AM	#212
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,063	To the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the "Local Churches" As referenced in "Can the Local Church Leadership Say, "We were Wrong" AN OPEN LETTER: To the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the "Local Churches" here is http://www.open-letter.org/ "More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry. This letter is a public appeal to disavow and withdraw controversial statements made by their founder, Witness Lee, on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man. The letter also asks the “local churches” and Living Stream to renounce statements made by Lee that denigrate evangelical Christian denominations and organizations. Finally, the letter appeals to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream to discontinue their use of lawsuits and threatened litigation against Christian individuals and organizations to answer criticisms or resolve disputes." We Were Wrong, Christian Research Journal Publish Date: 2009 \| Volume: 32 \| Issue: 06 In addition, here is a link to the actual "6-year CRI study": http://www.equip.org/christian-resea...-were-wrong-2/, which can be downloaded in 6 different languages. The Thread of Gold, God's Purpose, the Cross and Me https://www.amazon.com/Thread-Gold-G...thread+of+gold Hopefully these four documents will bring perspective to the "6 year CRI study" and provide a means for readers to make up their own minds about the validity of the "study". Nell

09-09-2016, 11:53 PM	#216
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What It's Really All About -- The height of arrogance I have spent more time outside of the recovery than in it. So what I say about James is not from the recovery or Lee. It is from the Bible and history. I can prove from the Bible that James did not have the vision and was stuck in Judaism, "faith + works". I can prove that James was still in Judaism, of the "circumcision party": Galatians 2:12: For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/2-12.htm Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Ac 21:18-26). So you see, a view that thinks that all of the apostles including James were believing in "faith alone" as per Paul's teachings, is not correct. Some were still stuck in their Judaism (even Peter, whom Paul had to rebuke). He is called "James the Less", as opposed to "James the Greater": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Less James the Great is the first class apostle and James the Less is the second class apostle. So before you go jumping to conclusions, you can see my view is informed by the history and the facts. The facts are that James is not of the same calibre as the other books of the Bible. If we do not realize this we may fall into error. Martin Luther was a very smart person and knew this too and is perhaps the reason he called James an "epistle of straw", although he should not have sought to remove it from the Canon. He knew its author was not of the same calibre as Paul or Peter. If we follow James more than the other books of the Bible we can end up being a "judaizing Christian" like he possibly was, and are not keeping with the truth of salvation by faith alone.

09-10-2016, 12:29 AM	#218
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: My Local Church Experience - And My Testimony Maybe you can be more specific and state which denominations you believe stand for Christ and which do not. Many would disagree with you that Catholic and Orthodox for example, stand for Christ. Consider that Pope Francis said that Christians do not exist outside of the Roman Catholic church. Lee never said that.

09-10-2016, 05:32 AM	#223
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: James James is a crucial book because without it we might not be clear that real faith issues in works. James did not mean that our works justify us, he meant that works confirm the existence of justifying faith. As one teacher said, the equation is not, Faith + Works = Salvation. it is instead, Faith = Salvation + Works In other words, real faith issues in two things (1) salvation, (2) works. This is what James was trying to convey. The idea of justification by faith already was widespread when James wrote his letter, otherwise he would not have addressed the idea. But he did not challenge it, he qualified it. He challenged the false idea that all you had to do was say you had faith and you were saved. We know that to be true now because we know "nominal" Christians claim to believe but don't have works. They lack genuine saving faith that results in regeneration.

09-11-2016, 06:07 AM	#238
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: My Local Church Experience - And My Testimony There is no place in the Bible that it says that if a church does not call itself the church then it's not the church. Suppose you have a duck, but the duck calls itself a chicken. Does that mean it's not a duck? No, it's still a duck. Has it lost it's standing as a duck? Can it no longer swim nor dive for food? Can it only walk around the yard and peck at the ground? No. Anyone would say that's stupid. So if some believers calls themselves "New Life Community Church" they are still the church in that city, or at least part of it. The LCM churches are the same way, they are just part of the church in the city. What you call yourself is irrelevant. What the LCM calls itself does not change its status, other than in the minds of its members. The idea that what you call yourself determines what you are is simply ridiculous. It's just not biblical. You don't start being the church in the city just because you call yourself that and you don't stop being it because you call yourself something else. Your view of this thing is extra-biblical. As I said, it's simply a device to convince anyone you can that you are special. But you aren't.

09-11-2016, 06:35 AM	#243
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: My Local Church Experience - And My Testimony Any church in the city can stand and act as the church in the city, because they have the reality of being the church in the city. We've experienced this at our church, ACF. We didn't have to drop our name to have it. We just had to realize the reality, know it meant we were one with all believers and stand in it. Now I realize that some believers don't see enough about the reality of oneness. But that doesn't change the fact that they have the reality. No where does the Bible say they have to drop their name or go meet with everyone else to have it, anymore than they have to cut their hair short and wear conservative clothing to have the reality of being a believer. If some group is truly divisive in their attitude, then their experience of the reality can be hindered. But having a name is not truly divisive. Divisiveness is a contentious attitude, not just wanting to be identified. The LCM has shown that its "rules" for "being the church" are self-serving and that they've never had any intention of recognizing any church as a church that does not come under their sway. This exposes their true motive.