Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your Christ is unity idea is a fantasy, a theory, an idea that renders Paul's words against divisions and factions of no meaning and no applicability today. You might be able to be taken seriously if there were only 2 or 3 denominations. But hundreds? You are not in reality, your head is in the clouds - "love and peace, man" - you been smoking that denominational dope again? Practically we see "Christ is our unity" is not displayed much at all. We may as well say "Shoes are our unity" because every Christian wears shoes. Christ is our unity but don't let that stop the Presbyterians requiring a membership agreement before they extend the hand of fellowship to you - or the Orthodox requiring a lengthy "conversion" process. According to you these are all just like little house assemblies on the street like in New testament times - isn't the fellowship so sweet and lovely? Roll back 500 years, I wonder if you could say that "Christ is our unity" nonsense while you were being tied to the stake by Catholics for being Protestant. Or being tied to the stake by Anglicans for being a Baptist.

And it is clear that your goal is the invalidation of everyone that is not you so you don't have anyone that you consider worthy to challenge your non-starter teachings. So that you can be the unique move of God with no challenger or other participants. So that you can enjoy the superiority of pedigree that Lee said dirt would provide.

I tire of showing how less divided Christianity is from each other than you are from all of them. You point at a hint of division and lay nuclear charges in a fault line so that you will be fully separated from them. You ignore that the charge to unity was not in meeting place or doctrinal preference of the elders. It was "in Christ." So either you have started a fight with those who are "in Christ" and are willfully dividing from them in the most extreme way, or you are declaring that they are not in Christ so that you can do it without dividing. And if they are not in Christ, then there is no reason to talk about their sins of division because they are not Christian.

Do you dare go there? Or do you admit that you are denigrating the majority of the people of Christ while waiving a wand over yourself to keep from being seen as the divisive sect that you are.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is clear that your goal is the invalidation of everyone that is not you so you don't have anyone that you consider worthy to challenge your non-starter teachings. So that you can be the unique move of God with no challenger or other participants. So that you can enjoy the superiority of pedigree that Lee said dirt would provide.

I tire of showing how less divided Christianity is from each other than you are from all of them. You point at a hint of division and lay nuclear charges in a fault line so that you will be fully separated from them. You ignore that the charge to unity was not in meeting place or doctrinal preference of the elders. It was "in Christ." So either you have started a fight with those who are "in Christ" and are willfully dividing from them in the most extreme way, or you are declaring that they are not in Christ so that you can do it without dividing. And if they are not in Christ, then there is no reason to talk about their sins of division because they are not Christian.

Do you dare go there? Or do you admit that you are denigrating the majority of the people of Christ while waiving a wand over yourself to keep from being seen as the divisive sect that you are.

I think any rational and logical person would question your claim "of less divided" versus "more divided". To say a couple is "less divorced" than another couple just doesn't make logical sense. It also doesn't make sense to say a couple is "more married" than another couple. A couple is either divorced or married - it's a binary thing. Similarly two churches are either divided or not. Your idea that denominations are "less divided than us" is not something a rational and logical person would say.

To drive my point home - if I mix orange juice and apple juice, they are mixed, and if I don't, they are divided. There is no such thing as the two juices being "more or less divided". One would not say that combining 10% orange juice and 90% apple juice makes the orange juice "more divided" than "50% orange and 50% apple juice". They are either mixed together, or they are separated.

There is also a contradiction in your arguments.

If I say "such and such a church is not a church but a sect" you will say I am "denigrating the majority of the people of Christ". By saying this you, not me, have coupled their identity in Christ with the church/denomination/sect they are part of. Essentially you are saying if I "attack" the denomination I am "attacking" them. This somewhat contradicts your statement that a "charge to unity was not in a meeting place or doctrinal preference". That is my argument all along - and why denominations are not simply "two different meeting places" but cuts/sects/divisions in the body.

On the other hand, if I point out that baptist and presbyterian on the same street are a division, you will argue that they are all "one in Christ" - their denomination does not divide them. This is only true in a theoretical spiritual church which does not exist in practice on the earth. This is as "head in the clouds" view of denominations.

Hopefully you can see the contradiction in your argument.

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. A person cannot be identified by their denomination on the one hand, (for which you say I denigrate the individuals in Christ), and not identified by their denomination on the other (when you say they are not a division).

There are only two possible coherent arguments you could make.
1) Any statement against a denomination is a statement against the individuals in that denomination - and yes two different churches on a street are a division - a baptist Christian is different from a Presbyterian Christian.

2) A persons identity in Christ is independent of the denomination which they attend, so an attack on a denomination is not an attack on the individual person in Christ - and no, two different churches on a street are not a division - baptist and presbyterian are just two different assemblies of people in Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think any rational and logical person would question your claim "of less divided" versus "more divided". To say a couple is "less divorced" than another couple just doesn't make logical sense. It also doesn't make sense to say a couple is "more married" than another couple. A couple is either divorced or married - it's a binary thing. Similarly two churches are either divided or not. Your idea that denominations are "less divided than us" is not something a rational and logical person would say.

The fact that you can point to something that has an all-or-nothing aspect of being together or being separate does not mean that the actual situation corresponds to your example. If we are talking about how well a married couple that is not divorced gets along, there is a broad range to be considered, all the way down to "don't even live in the same house in the same country" status while still married. And until they get a divorce, they are married no matter how dire it may seem.

Now don't go trying to make hay out of my reference to the situation being "dire." That is a reference to the situation of a married couple. The fact that you can find a correspondence at all between denominations and a married couple does not mean that all factors are the same. Just the one you bring up to make a comparison.

But actually, the only thing I need to show about marriage is that it is not simply "married and everything is good" v "divorced and everything is in the crapper." Your use of marriage as a metaphor presumes that only the all or nothing could be compared when actually, if it is an anyway a true metaphor, it is almost certainly an analysis of the most perfect marriage v the worst you can find that has not divorced.

Otherwise the claim of scripture that unity is in Christ is made into a lie.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To drive my point home - if I mix orange juice and apple juice, they are mixed, and if I don't, they are divided. There is no such thing as the two juices being "more or less divided". One would not say that combining 10% orange juice and 90% apple juice makes the orange juice "more divided" than "50% orange and 50% apple juice". They are either mixed together, or they are separated.

The fact that you can make an example that has the appearance of dealing with the issue at hand does not mean you have succeeded in doing so.

Just like you failure in the marriage metaphor, you fail in that there are many things that differ among the people of the body of Christ and they do not have to actually meet together for those differences to be absolved. The wall is torn down between Jew and Gentile, but not all gentiles have Jews in their assemblies nor do all Jewish assemblies have Gentiles. The orange juice and the apple juice have not mixed.

And even where they do "mix," it is not in the way of mixing orange juice and apple juice. Once you do that there is no way to separate them, but the individuals remain individuals. They can move to another location. They can discover that someone they know is at a different assembly and join there. Or they could discover that the assembly they are part of is allowing Jezebel to teach deep things of Satan and move to another nearby assembly.

Under the mixing of juices metaphor, there is no more orange juice and there is no more apple juice. Just a mixture that cannot be pulled back apart.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If I say "such and such a church is not a church but a sect" you will say I am "denigrating the majority of the people of Christ". By saying this you, not me, have coupled their identity in Christ with the church/denomination/sect they are part of.

Show me how, other than by games of semantics, you are not denigrating them individually?

You assert that anyone that speaks against the LRC is an "opposer." You assert that ones who were among you that start to have questions or doubts are "poison." And when the majority from within your own group cease to order LSM materials and they don't center their meetings upon those materials, you separate and start a new group with a slightly altered name (and in some cases sue to gain rights to the name).

Under those conditions, how are we to understand anything said against those of us, separately or as a groups, who do not adhere to you understanding of scripture as being about anything less than the people?

And that brings up the unstated-but-always-present doctrine of dirt. You talk as if there is something making you right for separating yet another time rather than working for the true unity. You ignore that oneness of the body is in Christ. It is not in assembly, affiliation, leadership, or anything else. So using difference in assembly, affiliation, leadership, or anything else to declare an assembly a sect rather than a church is to declare the church to be a sect. If the church is a sect, then what are you? Must not be either church or sect. Something else? Something not really Christian?

I would not say that to be true. But if I didn't realize that real Christians are capable of turning against the universal oneness of the body of Christ over stupid things, I would have to accept that you are not Christian.

As for your doctrine of the ground, it is properly mocked as a faux doctrine. The moniker "doctrine of dirt" is not a slam against Christ because he created no such doctrine. You toss it around as if it is simply true. And when we actually discuss it, you point to a couple of passages that could be read that way, but only as a possible understanding that would need more support. But you turn it into a must that is never stated in such a way and then charge everyone else with being a sect because they/we do not see it your way. So it is safe to say that your entire foundation is a "remote chance that it is actually true but never actually stated" doctrine that, coupled with a misreading of Paul's comments in 1 Cor 1 - 4, creates a situation under which your position has a remote chance of being true. But even if it were, to take the position of separating from those others because of your rule and then calling them a sect is to do exactly what Paul was admonishing the Corinthians against.

We are one in:

Christ, not race
Christ, not gender
Christ, not nationality
Christ, not age
Christ, not assembly
Christ, not position on Calvinism v Arminianism
Christ, not immersion v sprinkling
Christ, not commonality of doctrine

And if the basis of unity is not assembly or doctrine, then whether they have a name or disagree on some peripheral doctrines does not change anything. We are one.

And until you find something that allows you to reverse anything into unity on a basis other than Christ, when you call any assembly a sect, you willfully strike out against the unity in Christ. You make a mockery of any claim you have to unity with anyone but yourselves.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The fact that you can point to something that has an all-or-nothing aspect of being together or being separate does not mean that the actual situation corresponds to your example. If we are talking about how well a married couple that is not divorced gets along, there is a broad range to be considered, all the way down to "don't even live in the same house in the same country" status while still married. And until they get a divorce, they are married no matter how dire it may seem.

Now don't go trying to make hay out of my reference to the situation being "dire." That is a reference to the situation of a married couple. The fact that you can find a correspondence at all between denominations and a married couple does not mean that all factors are the same. Just the one you bring up to make a comparison.

But actually, the only thing I need to show about marriage is that it is not simply "married and everything is good" v "divorced and everything is in the crapper." Your use of marriage as a metaphor presumes that only the all or nothing could be compared when actually, if it is an anyway a true metaphor, it is almost certainly an analysis of the most perfect marriage v the worst you can find that has not divorced.

Otherwise the claim of scripture that unity is in Christ is made into a lie.

The fact that you can make an example that has the appearance of dealing with the issue at hand does not mean you have succeeded in doing so.

Just like you failure in the marriage metaphor, you fail in that there are many things that differ among the people of the body of Christ and they do not have to actually meet together for those differences to be absolved. The wall is torn down between Jew and Gentile, but not all gentiles have Jews in their assemblies nor do all Jewish assemblies have Gentiles. The orange juice and the apple juice have not mixed.

And even where they do "mix," it is not in the way of mixing orange juice and apple juice. Once you do that there is no way to separate them, but the individuals remain individuals. They can move to another location. They can discover that someone they know is at a different assembly and join there. Or they could discover that the assembly they are part of is allowing Jezebel to teach deep things of Satan and move to another nearby assembly.

Under the mixing of juices metaphor, there is no more orange juice and there is no more apple juice. Just a mixture that cannot be pulled back apart.

Show me how, other than by games of semantics, you are not denigrating them individually?

You assert that anyone that speaks against the LRC is an "opposer." You assert that ones who were among you that start to have questions or doubts are "poison." And when the majority from within your own group cease to order LSM materials and they don't center their meetings upon those materials, you separate and start a new group with a slightly altered name (and in some cases sue to gain rights to the name).

Under those conditions, how are we to understand anything said against those of us, separately or as a groups, who do not adhere to you understanding of scripture as being about anything less than the people?

And that brings up the unstated-but-always-present doctrine of dirt. You talk as if there is something making you right for separating yet another time rather than working for the true unity. You ignore that oneness of the body is in Christ. It is not in assembly, affiliation, leadership, or anything else. So using difference in assembly, affiliation, leadership, or anything else to declare an assembly a sect rather than a church is to declare the church to be a sect. If the church is a sect, then what are you? Must not be either church or sect. Something else? Something not really Christian?

I would not say that to be true. But if I didn't realize that real Christians are capable of turning against the universal oneness of the body of Christ over stupid things, I would have to accept that you are not Christian.

As for your doctrine of the ground, it is properly mocked as a faux doctrine. The moniker "doctrine of dirt" is not a slam against Christ because he created no such doctrine. You toss it around as if it is simply true. And when we actually discuss it, you point to a couple of passages that could be read that way, but only as a possible understanding that would need more support. But you turn it into a must that is never stated in such a way and then charge everyone else with being a sect because they/we do not see it your way. So it is safe to say that your entire foundation is a "remote chance that it is actually true but never actually stated" doctrine that, coupled with a misreading of Paul's comments in 1 Cor 1 - 4, creates a situation under which your position has a remote chance of being true. But even if it were, to take the position of separating from those others because of your rule and then calling them a sect is to do exactly what Paul was admonishing the Corinthians against.

We are one in:

Christ, not race
Christ, not gender
Christ, not nationality
Christ, not age
Christ, not assembly
Christ, not position on Calvinism v Arminianism
Christ, not immersion v sprinkling
Christ, not commonality of doctrine

And if the basis of unity is not assembly or doctrine, then whether they have a name or disagree on some peripheral doctrines does not change anything. We are one.

And until you find something that allows you to reverse anything into unity on a basis other than Christ, when you call any assembly a sect, you willfully strike out against the unity in Christ. You make a mockery of any claim you have to unity with anyone but yourselves.

"But even if it were, to take the position of separating from those others because of your rule and then calling them a sect is to do exactly what Paul was admonishing the Corinthians against."

That is only if our original position, was to be in the genuine church, as the Corinthians were. This statement of yours is fine but only if we are in the genuine church to begin with. Apply this statement to someone in the JW church for example,and it doesn't make sense.

If we both lived in Corinth, I would be in the "church in Corinth" and you would be in whatever denomination you want to be in. Paul's instructions are for me to avoid becoming like you. Paul's instructions are not for you to avoid becoming like me, because I am already in the "church in Corinth". If I am already in the church in Corinth then for you, as a person in a sect, to say I am "striking against unity in Christ" is silly. It is as if Martin Luther, once separated from the Catholic church, told the Pope they are "striking against unity" when they ask Luther to come back. But in this instance, we are not talking about the Roman Catholic church, but the genuine church in the locality.

Many things in the Christian life are binary things. Heaven/Hell, Saved/unsaved, born again/not born again. It is the same with church, we're either in oneness or we ain't.

I don't know what is the rule you are using to determine "more" divided versus "less" divided. For example, is two denominations that meet together once a month more divided than a denomination that meets together every week? What if those two denominations are Catholic and Mormon, versus Baptist and Presbyterian.. are two denominations more or less divided than each other? "more" or "less" divided is entirely up to your subjective interpretation. For example, are two churches, Catholic and Protestant, that meet together every week more in unity than two churches of the same denomination separated by a 5 hours drive?

The denomination might say they are in unity and in one with each other because they have the same beliefs and belong to the same organization. The Catholic and Protestant might say they are divided by their 500 year history, even though they meet together they don't feel the oneness.

Just because a divorced mom and a dad might get together for the sake of their children's birthdays does not mean they are "less divided" than a divorced couple that never sees each other.

I believe that if a person truly had their identity in Christ and believed in the universal oneness they would not be offended when something negative is said about their denomination. If they are offended this indicates that their identity is in their denomination and not in Christ.

It is contradictory to talk about the unity in Christ and then categorize believers as "more divided" or "less divided". Believers are either meeting together as universal members of the body of Christ or they are meeting as subgroup or sect of that universality. There is no grey area of being "more divided" versus "less divided". The bible never talks this way. The bible never praises one group for being less divided than another. Paul simply says "i hear there are factions among you" (1 Cor 11:18). It does not matter if those factions are within a single house church, or whether the factions are meeting in places separated by a 1 hour drive, it's still a division.

The term sect in itself is not a negative term, it means a cut or division.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and probably Anglican/Lutheran too don't see themselves as sects, but represent the whole universal body. So the situation is one of multiple groups representing the universal body which is a situation of confusion. Then there are groups which see themselves as only "one of many" churches. They see themselves as sub-groups, so they are a sub-group, or a sect.

[Nell]

What does this discussion have to do with the Bible Answer Man's Conversion?

[Evangelical]

I think it's related to the topic because Hank has joined a church (Orthodox) which considers all other churches to be sects and believes itself to be the only true church in the city. Some have gone so far as to say that the Orthodox church is a cult.

I pointed out the irony here, that while people are proudly saying that Hank did not join the LRC. Let me remind everyone that the church he joined considers the church you belong to not to be a real church. Furthermore, they doubt your eternal salvation unless you are part of the church. This is something the LR never does because we believe in salvation by faith alone.

So I think a discussion about the difference between sects and churches is relevant. I presented the LR view which is based upon the bible and what it reveals about the locality. The Orthodox view is based upon church tradition - Catholic too. The prevailing view on here seems to be that all groups of Christians meeting together are churches. So any Christians who get together and read the bible together can be considered a church.

I think the biggest problem that evangelical protestants struggle with on this issue is considering there could be one true church in the city. Any group that claims itself to be THE church in the city is automatically given cult status. The internet is full of "is Catholic a cult, is Orthodox a cult" questions on protestant websites. Any group which is against the status quo, even if they have existed for thousands of years, is questioned. This is because evangelical protestants consider the many divisions to be a normal situation. When according to the bible and church history, it is quite abnormal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the biggest problem that evangelical protestants struggle with on this issue is considering there could be one true church in the city. Any group that claims itself to be THE church in the city is automatically given cult status. The internet is full of "is Catholic a cult, is Orthodox a cult" questions on protestant websites. Any group which is against the status quo, even if they have existed for thousands of years, is questioned. This is because evangelical protestants consider the many divisions to be a normal situation. When according to the bible and church history, it is quite abnormal.

Of course evangelicals consider there is one true church in every city.

They also consider there is only one true church in every state.

In every country too ... Composed of all the true, believing, born again, blood washed, children of God.

What's scary are the LC demands that only LSM books are read, only LSM trainings are legit and required, only LSM appointed elders must rule this church in every city, only LSM ...

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we both lived in Corinth, I would be in the "church in Corinth" and you would be in whatever denomination you want to be in. Paul's instructions are for me to avoid becoming like you. Paul's instructions are not for you to avoid becoming like me, because I am already in the "church in Corinth". If I am already in the church in Corinth then for you, as a person in a sect, to say I am "striking against unity in Christ" is silly.

So the Catholics point to Peter as the ground for the true church, right? And the Orthodox because they have held true to the practices, traditions, and teachings of the apostles? And the LSM because Witness Lee recovered a divine revelation from God on the importance of the ground of oneness manifested through a ministry in Anaheim?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So the Catholics point to Peter as the ground for the true church, right? And the Orthodox because they have held true to the practices, traditions, and teachings of the apostles? And the LSM because Witness Lee recovered a divine revelation from God on the importance of the ground of oneness manifested through a ministry in Anaheim?

He who has ears to hear, let him hear that the ground of the true church is the crucified and resurrected Christ.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. -- Mt 16.18

Therefore, as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, overflowing with gratitude. -- Col 2.6-7

As the temple building, the true church is build upon Christ our solid Rock foundation.

As a living organism, the true church is rooted in Christ our fertile ground.

For those LC'ers who reject the scriptures, Paul has an admonishing word in the following verse:

Take heed lest any one makes spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -- Col 2.8

Note that the "one church one city" model is from the traditions of men, introduced initially by W. Nee, and perpetuated by W. Lee and the Blendeds, in order to take you captive as their "spoils."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

And the LSM because Witness Lee recovered a divine revelation from God on the importance of the ground of oneness manifested through a ministry in Anaheim?

In the 80's and 90's there were subtleties what the ground was. Then just over ten years ago it became transparent due to Great Lakes area turmoil. It did matter if a locality chose not to choose sides in the Titus versus Blendeds tug of war. If you as a local church chose not to emphasize LSM fellowship, you were deemed as a local church "needing to be replastered". To choose Christ alone was not an option. That showed what the ground is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So the Catholics point to Peter as the ground for the true church, right? And the Orthodox because they have held true to the practices, traditions, and teachings of the apostles? And the LSM because Witness Lee recovered a divine revelation from God on the importance of the ground of oneness manifested through a ministry in Anaheim?

More or less. Locality as the ground is another way to say "not history, Peter, doctrines, practices etc". It means we should meet together on a regular basis because we live near each other in the same locality.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

More or less. Locality as the ground is another way to say "not history, Peter, doctrines, practices etc". It means we should meet together on a regular basis because we live near each other in the same locality.

And if a LSM church doesn't exist in an area, how does one know where to meet? If it does exist but people don't know about the "Church in XYZ" how does one know where to meet? The churches in cities I've visited don't make their presence known outside of the college campus - I assume this is similar worldwide?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is only if our original position, was to be in the genuine church, as the Corinthians were.

And here is the fatal flaw in your argument.

"genuine church"

There is no such construct in the scripture. It is a strawman created by Nee and Lee so that they could knock everyone else down while they prop themselves up. Sort of like those cardboard people in the fake Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles.

Church is church. It is the collection of the people of Christ, who are the body of Christ. Any attempt to decimate this into a subset that is "genuine" and the rest who are not would appear to be unsupported in any context and actually contrary to the call that we be one.

Yes, I know that the oneness is spiritual and not necessarily "practical" in every way, but if the practical is overtly divided, then there is a problem.

And stating that some churches are genuine and others are not is clearly the kind of practical division that should be verboten. The kinds of "division" that you point to with respect to all the others are of many magnitudes less in effect (if any at all) because it does not presume something so extreme as "genuine" v "not genuine." They do not deny that the church is the church — something that you do.

And what is really funny is that you don't even claim to be separating over doctrines. You do it over nothing. Nothing that is stated in scripture, that is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And here is the fatal flaw in your argument.

"genuine church"

There is no such construct in the scripture. It is a strawman created by Nee and Lee so that they could knock everyone else down while they prop themselves up. Sort of like those cardboard people in the fake Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles.

Church is church. It is the collection of the people of Christ, who are the body of Christ. Any attempt to decimate this into a subset that is "genuine" and the rest who are not would appear to be unsupported in any context and actually contrary to the call that we be one.

Yes, I know that the oneness is spiritual and not necessarily "practical" in every way, but if the practical is overtly divided, then there is a problem.

And stating that some churches are genuine and others are not is clearly the kind of practical division that should be verboten. The kinds of "division" that you point to with respect to all the others are of many magnitudes less in effect (if any at all) because it does not presume something so extreme as "genuine" v "not genuine." They do not deny that the church is the church — something that you do.

And what is really funny is that you don't even claim to be separating over doctrines. You do it over nothing. Nothing that is stated in scripture, that is.

Anyway, on topic, for some reason Hank decided to reject your idea of there being no genuine church, and decided to join a church which thinks itself to be the genuine church in the city. If you are evangelical protestant this must be "embarrassing for you that Hank rejected your idea of church" (I'm joking).

Your view of no genuine church just doesn't make common sense to me. Because when you say there is no such thing as a genuine church, you are also saying there is no such thing as a false church.
For example, if I go to the Catholic church, am I meeting with the church? And if I attend a LGBT church, of which a percentage are not living an immoral lifestyle, but the pastor is possibly LGBT, am I also meeting with the church? If I forget their denominational label which classes them as an LGBT church, and see them just as a meeting of Christians, there is still the matter of the pastor holding a communion service of which I would be obliged to partake of if I attend there. Perhaps if there was no denominational name and the pastor resigned from his position, this might be an acceptable fellowship. But I think most people would have an issue with saying that a church with a gay married pastor holding communion services can be "the church".

Suppose there is a church on the street named "LGBT church". 99% of the congregation is not LGBT but supports it, and the male pastor is married to a man. There are some churches like this existing (although that 99% figure is possibly exaggerated). Most bible believing Christians would say this is not a genuine church. But according to you it is "the church" because there is no such thing as a genuine church. My point is there must be some defining rules of meeting otherwise this sort of situation can arise. Furthermore, if this church was in your street, you would be obliged to attend it because it is the closest gathering of Christians to you. And if you choose not to attend it but travel to attend a church on the other side of town, aren't you being divisive and sectarian? Aren't you saying "this gathering of believers closest to me is not good enough for me to fellowship with"?.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyway, on topic, for some reason Hank decided to reject your idea of there being no genuine church . . . .

Strawman.

The problem is not whether there is a genuine church. It is whether a church can be other than genuine. If it is a church, it should be genuine. If it is not a church, then it is making no claim of being a church. My point is not that we accept churches that are not genuine. It is that you claim that most of the churches that are genuine are not because of your divisiveness.

A Buddhist temple does not claim to be a church. A Mason's lodge does not claim to be a church. A mosque does not claim to be a church. (We won't get into the LDS and JWs. They do claim to be a church and we tend to think otherwise.)

And just because ole Hank decided to join with another group that thinks theirs is the genuine and others are not does not make your claim to the same status any more real.