The Bible record describes God leading people into and out of things

[Evangelical]

The bible record describes God leading people into and out of things in various ways, for various lengths of time, at various times, for various purposes.

The bible mentions people being lead out of at least the following:
sin (obviously)
other religions (e.g. Judaism)
the world and mystery Babylon
occupations (e.g. fishing)
country of residence or birth
deception

It is notable that we do not find any examples of God leading people into and out of a few things including:
the truth, marriage, responsibilities to children and families (1 Tim 5:8), ministry, and churches.

But I would invite anyone to find one example of God leading someone out of a church in the Bible, I cannot find any.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But I would invite anyone to find one example of God leading someone out of a church in the Bible, I cannot find any.

I think you know why. Jesus Christ established only one Church, one ecclesia, not a collection of different churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I think you know why. Jesus Christ established only one Church, one ecclesia, not a collection of different churches.

What I cannot understand is why Watchman Nee left the Protestant denomination to form his own church. Paul said, "In what you were called, in this remain." Nee did not remain.(1 Cor. 7)

Why leave a Protestant denomination, which according to Brethren teachings had a genuine lampstand (see RecV footnotes in Rev. 3) and go to the Philadelphia lampstand? Why leave one church for another?

My sense here is that it was like the rest of his ministry, and Witness Lee after him: untrammeled subjectivity. "When we do it, it's not sectarianism."

Like the 'recovery' of the principles of authority and submission, which conveniently occurred only after his senior co-worker Leland Wang was removed from the scene. Nee and Lee were both adept at uncovering biblical principles which applied to all but themselves.

[aron]

"But the Protestant church isn't a true church. It's a daughter of the Great Harlot". Okay, then, how did you find salvation there? How does it then supposedly have a lampstand burning with eternal fire before the One who is?

The whole thing is nonsensical mind games. O what tangled webs we weave!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What I cannot understand is why Watchman Nee left the Protestant denomination to form his own church. Paul said, "In what you were called, in this remain." Nee did not remain.(1 Cor. 7)

You don't seem to know what the lampstand actually is. Why don't you tell us what you think the lampstand is? The lampstand is not something that once you have you keep it for ever. We need to keep the lampstand. The Protestants lost their lamp stand.

A summary of the descriptions of the churches is:

Catholic - apostate church
Protestant - degraded reformed church
Brethren - degraded recovered church
local churches - genuine recovered church

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

.The Protestants lost their lamp stand.

So how many lampstands are now burning before God? Four? Do you have any idea how naive this interpretation looks?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A summary of the descriptions of the churches is:

Catholic - apostate church
Protestant - degraded reformed church
Brethren - degraded recovered church
local churches - genuine recovered church

Evangelical, I am sorry but I belive this is a myth. You must know the Bible well, so do you really want to say that Jesus Christ is a liar or the Bible truth changes?

It is the Lord who says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. (Matthew 16:18).

If the Church became apostate or degraded, this means the Church was conquered by hell and the Lord didn't keep His promise.

It also means that the apostles were not able to choose and instruct the right disciples. And it also means that the Holy Spirit became inactive in the Church for many centuries. Do you believe all this?

What about the Apostle Paul who says that the Church is holy and without blemish, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing? (Ephesians 5:27) Was it just a temporary Bible truth?

It is the same Apostle who says that the Church is the household of God, a pillar and ground of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

When Jesus says, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20), doesn't this mean that the Lord will be with His Church all the time to the end of the age?

Do you mean that the Lord and the Holy Spirit left His Church at the first centuries, took a pause, then, in the 15 century, the Lord was recovered by Luther, and then He was lost again... until the 20th century when Witness Lee recovered the Lord and the true Christian faith at last?

Then what about Ephesians 3:21? "to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever."

Doesn't this mean that the Church will glorify the Lord through all generations, always? Do you want to say that the Church stopped to glorify the Lord (I.e. the Church disappeared) until the Lord and His Church were recovered by Witness Lee and his man-made organization?

Evangelical, don't you see the contradictions?

I hope you will not say that the Church became invisible. The Lord and Apostles never said anything about invisible church. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Body, ecclesia, must be visible. The ecclesia are those people who gather together.

If the Church became apostate, then why do you accept her Bible which was compiled in the 4th century? It means you read the book of corrupt church. Why do you accept and trust the Bible canon of the apostate church? The canon which was formed by the Church Fathers in the year 363 at the Council in Laodicea? You don't seem to be consistent. What if apostate church gave you a wrong canon of the Bible? WL should have recovered it as well. Why did he give a new translation and didn't change the canon?

I think this statement is more consistent:

"If the gates of Hell prevailed against it even for one day, then that Scripture is wrong. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit will always teach and guide the Church, and lead it into all Truth. As Christians we have to believe that that Scripture is true, and that God has always preserved and kept His Church alive and well." (An Eastern Orthodox author).

Why should I trust you and Witness Lee and not the Apostolic Fathers, who followed and studied from the Apostles personally? Why should I believe you and Witness Lee but not early Church writings and Christian authors of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries? They are very consistent in their faith. For example, for the Apostles' students and early Christians the Holy Communion (Eucharist) was not just a symbol but actual body and blood of Christ. For you and Witness Lee, it is just a symbol. Who is right? I believe the early Christians were right. Though you are right too. Because the Witness Lee's organization is not the Church. That's why what you have is just a symbol.

The Church was one unified body for the first one thousand years. The western Roman Catholic Church became corrupt doctrinally while the Eastern Orthodox Church preserved the Christian faith. (It is possible to check it out if we read the early Church writings and the decisions of the Councils before the Great Schism). Thus, the Church as a whole never apostatized. What is corrupt are groups who have broken away from the true church and established false doctrine, such as the RCC.

Christ did not come to establish a Bible, but rather His Kingdom through the Church. I wonder, could the LRC appear and exist without the Holy Bible? I don't think so. However, the Church was created without the Bible, existed without the Bible for a few first centuries and if you take the Holy Scripture from the Church, it will remain and not collapse. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth which is based on Christ. While, the LRC is based on Witness Lee's private opinion about the Bible. Do you see the difference?

Evangelical, I am sorry if I am bit harsh on you. You seem to be a thoughtful man. So, it is all personal, however not against you but against WL and his doctrines that my wife blindly holds on. She prefers to believe in myths since she doesn't have a wish to study and analyze the issue.

Please forgive me.

God bless.

PS The Church is One
by Alexei Khomiakov

The Church is one, notwithstanding her division as it appears to a man who is still alive on earth. It is only in relation to man that it is possible to recognize a division of the Church into visible and invisible; her unity is, in reality, true and absolute. Those who are alive on earth, those who have finished their earthly course, those who, like the angels, were not created for a life on earth, those in future generations who have not yet begun their earthly course, are all united together in one Church, in one and the same grace of God...

[Evangelical]

It is hard to reconcile the state of the Church with Jesus's words about the gates of hell even when considering the state of the early churches. Revelation shows that a genuine church can have its lamp stand taken away.

It is unclear that the early church believed in transubstantiation.There are many early church fathers who mention the bread and wine as symbols. Protestant theologians have carefully studied the early christian writings too. There has been no solid conclusion that the early church believed in transubstantiation as the Catholics (and Orthodox?) believe - otherwise we would all believe that. Logically, transubstantiation makes no sense. Basically to believe in transubstantiation is to believe that Jesus's blood can be bought at a liquor store. During the service the Priest does some hand waving magic hocus pocus and turns it into Jesus's blood, poof, alakazam, puff of smoke, it's now real blood - yeah right.

If the Orthodox church is the genuine church, one thing I do not understand is how can a church of another country be in a different country? For example why there is a Greek Orthodox church in London? According to the pattern of the New Testament churches, we do not find any of the churches named after a different country. For example, the genuine church in London is not Greek it is English. It does not make sense to say that a church which came from Greece and now exists in London is the true church in London. The bible consistently defines a church by its locality, not by its claimed links to history and apostolic succession - many Protestants can claim that, including Lutheran and Anglican. I've done the math in another thread - 100% hit rate for counting the number of times the Bible refers to church and locality in the singular.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So how many lampstands are now burning before God? Four? Do you have any idea how naive this interpretation looks?

No, only the locality churches have a lampstand.

No where in the Bible do we find a lamp stand given to a church with a name other than its locality.

Please show us from the Bible where Jesus gave a lamp stand to the Lutheran church or the Baptist church?

Do you know what the lampstand is anyway?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is hard to reconcile the state of the Church with Jesus's words about the gates of hell even when considering the state of the early churches. Revelation shows that a genuine church can have its lamp stand taken away.

There was only one early Church, not many churches. They all were in communion with each other and shared the same faith. The churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch -- they were one Church, whose priests and bishops shared the same Apostolic Succession.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is unclear that the early church believed in transubstantiation.There are many early church fathers who mention the bread and wine as symbols. Protestant theologians have carefully studied the early christian writings too. There has been no solid conclusion that the early church believed in transubstantiation as the Catholics (and Orthodox?) believe - otherwise we would all believe that. Logically, transubstantiation makes no sense. Basically to believe in transubstantiation is to believe that Jesus's blood can be bought at a liquor store. During the service the Priest does some hand waving magic hocus pocus and turns it into Jesus's blood, poof, alakazam, puff of smoke, it's now real blood - yeah right.

Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation. It is a Roman Catholic thing. For us, the Eucharist is a Mystery.

But it is clear that the early Church believed in the actual body and blood of Christ. All ancient churches from different localities preserved that faith.

For Orthodox, criterion of truth is not one man's opinion or a few men's but the consensus of the Church Fathers. Most of the Fathers believed in the actual body and blood of Christ.

Besides, why didn't Jesus stop and explain everything to the desciples who left Him after He had asked them to eat His flesh and blood? Why did St Paul gives this warning: "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 11:29-30)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the Orthodox church is the genuine church, one thing I do not understand is how can a church of another country be in a different country? For example why there is a Greek Orthodox church in London? According to the pattern of the New Testament churches, we do not find any of the churches named after a different country. For example, the genuine church in London is not Greek it is English. It does not make sense to say that a church which came from Greece and now exists in London is the true church in London. The bible consistently defines a church by its locality, not by its claimed links to history and apostolic succession - many Protestants can claim that, including Lutheran and Anglican. I've done the math in another thread - 100% hit rate for counting the number of times the Bible refers to church and locality in the singular.

That's a misunderstanding. Greek Orthodox Church isn't the Church of Greece. It is a local Orthodox Church, the Church in Greece. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion of autocephalous churches that share the same faith. Teachings, dogmas are the same. Just the worship in Greek Orthodox church will be in Greek, in Russia - in Russian, in Arabic countries - in Arabic. But we are still one Church. I can receive Communion in any of these churches. When I was in London, I attended a Russian Orthodox church - only because I understand the language. If there were no Russian church, I would go to Greek, Anthiochian or any other Eastern Orthodox church. It doesn't matter since the faith and worship are the same. Only the language makes the difference. In Greece, I would go to a Greek church. I am not Greek but it is still one Church.

Orthodox Church is not based on some patterns or on the ground of locality. She is based on the same faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. You can copy any patterns in the early Church but if you don't have the same faith, why do you need the patterns?

God bless.

PS BTW, England was an Orthodox country before.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of..._British_Isles

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, only the locality churches have a lampstand.

So how does the "Protestant church" have a lampstand? This makes no sense at all.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So how does the "Protestant church" have a lampstand? This makes no sense at all.

If you understood what the lampstand is it would make sense to you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation. It is a Roman Catholic thing. For us, the Eucharist is a Mystery.

A mystery? How can it be a mystery if nothing mysterious happens? Does the wine taste like blood? salty? (that would be a mystery). No, so it is not a mystery all, because nothing happens. So you must believe that the Orthodox church is the one true church (one holy catholic and apostolic church). You are not allowed to take communion in a non-orthodox church. This somewhat contradicts your belief that the Church is based upon the faith in Jesus. That is, if there were a family of Christians living next door to you, who have the faith of Jesus, you would prefer to take communion in the Greek or Russian Orthodox church with all of its traditions and rituals (which are nothing but man-made things), than take communion with the family next door to you. But we can tell from the Bible that meeting in a house is closer to the practice of the New Testament church than the overly ritualistic services of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc. These are examples of the lampstand being replaced with ritual and tradition.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you understood what the lampstand is it would make sense to you.

That's the LC dodge: "You don't understand", or "You just don't get it". Meaning: "You haven't been sufficiently mesmerised to be tractable to our teachings."

No, I don't understand what the lampstand is. Neither did Lee, but that didn't stop him from publishing several dozen books on the subject. A lampstand is a hollow tube, right? Holding oil? Supporting the lamp?

And, why seven lampstands? One lampstand, sevenfold intensified? Or have we abandoned that interpretive metric in the span of a few verses?

And why did the angel say, "I, Jesus" sent His angel to testify to the churches? Why does the angel tell John not to worship him, that he's a fellow servant, then says, "I Jesus"? (Rev 22:16). The narrative is arguably a lot simpler than Lee's local church-centric narrative, and much more profound. The angel (spirit) is speaking to the churches. Not about the churches, nor about the "seven ages of the church". But about Jesus. It is a revelation of Jesus Christ, which was given to John (1:1), not a revelation of the church.

I've spent the last several years returning to the first three chapters of the Apocalypse of John. Though I understand little in the way of bland, simplistic "This means that", I find it to be the well of deep waters. It's based on the throne-scenes of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and the theme, "Everything (seen, temporal) on earth as it is (unseen, immutable) in heaven." Where do you think the seven lampstands come from?

The deeper you get in, the deeper it gets. By contrast to the testimony of the Bible, when one begins to poke at Lee's narrative it shreds in hand like crepe paper. Legitimate local churches with legitimate local lampstands become stand-ins for non-local church associations that to Lee et al have no legitimacy. Go figure.

The key to staying with "the ministry" through the forest of teachings, is forget about last weeks lesson, because the present one either ignores or contradicts it. And whatever you do, don't ask questions. A question mark is shaped like a serpent. Just say "amen". Be one with the ministry.

[aron]

Evangelical said that I don't understand the lampstands, which is probably true at some level. But I haven't been expounding on them; rather critiquing the crude, simplistic, myopic and self-centered exposition of Mssrs Lee & Co.

Here's why I find it so unsatisfactory. The Apocalypse is as subjective and idiosyncratic as its author, John. This was the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, not Paul or James etc. The author, like his Mentor, liked to speak (write) in parables. Jesus would teach in pictures, then leave the puzzled crowds with, "He who has ears to hear, let them hear." The disciples privately would hear the explanation.

Notice that the epistles to the 7 Asian churches end similarly: "He who has ears to hear, let them hear. ."

Meaning, John's disciples would hear private exposition. Now the exposition was orally transmitted, and is not extant, but we have supporting inter-testamental documents and most importantly we have the Fathers who within the scope of at least some of the oral tradition. But the post-Calvinist "me and my Bible" world of 19th and early 20th century Protestant fundamentalism (Nee and Lee) would have none of that. What it meant to Nee and Lee was sufficient. We had their texts, their logic, their unmet needs read onto the situation and that equalled God's speaking for today. Or so we were told. In this context was the local-church-centric lampstand exposition come forth.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The Apocalypse is as subjective and idiosyncratic as its author, John. .

So then why am I giving a free pass to the subjectivity of John while panning that of Nee and Lee?

Simple: because John was with Jesus. John spent decades immersed in the first-century church activity post-Jesus. John had access to many oral traditions, lost writings, etc. Second, John's work has had 2,000 years of corroborative analysis done on it by the world at large. It's established, canonical.

By contrast the work of Nee and Lee is passed off as authoritative, objective truth ("this equals that" and "this means that") but is hopelessly biased and often based on very limited experiences. And the last thing any of these expositors wanted was objective assessment.

So the Bible stands, but the Bible expositors fall. (including to some extent myself, but I'm not passing myself off as an authority).

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A mystery? How can it be a mystery if nothing mysterious happens? Does the wine taste like blood? salty? (that would be a mystery). No, so it is not a mystery all, because nothing happens.

At the heart of the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ is the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit. The bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like wine but it is the actual body and blood of Christ. That's beyond the human intellect. This mystery is likened to the Lord’s Incarnation when God became a human. We can't explain it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you must believe that the Orthodox church is the one true church (one holy catholic and apostolic church). You are not allowed to take communion in a non-orthodox church. This somewhat contradicts your belief that the Church is based upon the faith in Jesus. That is, if there were a family of Christians living next door to you, who have the faith of Jesus, you would prefer to take communion in the Greek or Russian Orthodox church with all of its traditions and rituals (which are nothing but man-made things), than take communion with the family next door to you. But we can tell from the Bible that meeting in a house is closer to the practice of the New Testament church than the overly ritualistic services of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc. These are examples of the lampstand being replaced with ritual and tradition.

How can I receive Communion in your church when we don't share the same faith? I believe in the actual body and blood of Christ. You believe in a symbol. You are preaching a different Christ. The early Church didn't have communion with groups (for example, gnostics) whose faith in Christ was different. It was a way to protect and preserve the original faith.

Rituals are words, gestures, and motions that convey worth and significance. Orthodox rituals are symbolic. They are linked to our faith. We repeat the prayers and motions over and over because they work for us. The goal of the worship is communion with God. If a certain worship works, you repeat it again and again.

I belive you can admit that the LRC has her own rituals and tradition (which are nothing but man-made things). Am I right?

Besides, your own behavior must be ritualistic. You brush your teeth and you have meals at certain time. You give flowers as a token of appreciation. You present a wedding to your bride. You pray in the evening and the morning. You ask the Lord to bless the food you eat. You thank the Lord for the food. They are all rituals. And you do them for a reason. They have a meaning and they effectively work for you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

At the heart of the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ is the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit. The bread tastes like bread and the wine tastes like wine but it is the actual body and blood of Christ. That's beyond the human intellect. This mystery is likened to the Lord’s Incarnation when God became a human. We can't explain it.

God becoming human involved something actually happening, confirmed and verified in various ways, by the miraculous birth, eyewitness testimonies of these things, and Jesus's life, words and deeds. That's a mystery for sure. And how did Jesus turn water into wine? That is a mystery, it can't be explained. But that actually happened, one minute it was water, the next it was wine. The people could taste the difference, and were amazed. Things happened, they can't be explained, that's a mystery.

The thing is, with the communion bread and wine, nothing happens to it, the bread and wine is not changed, so it is not a mystery. You have been taught that something happens. But your own senses tells you that it is still bread and wine, it tastes the same, looks the same, and if it was studied chemically before and after it would be exactly the same. A mystery is something that happens that cannot be explained. Since nothing has happened to the bread and wine, then it cannot be a mystery. Real mysteries involve something happening that cannot be explained, e.g. water tastes like wine. A belief is not a mystery - just believing something to be true does not make it mysterious. A mystery involves something tangible that cannot be explained. Tongues of fire, rushing wind, a puff of smoke? Anything happen? No, nothing happens after the Priest prays over the elements on the table. The only thing that has happened is mass delusion of gullible minds that something has happened. Because we do not believe in the same delusion because there is no mystery about it, then you believe we do not have the same faith in Jesus.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

How can I receive Communion in your church when we don't share the same faith? I believe in the actual body and blood of Christ. You believe in a symbol. You are preaching a different Christ. The early Church didn't have communion with groups (for example, gnostics) whose faith in Christ was different. It was a way to protect and preserve the original faith.

Rituals are words, gestures, and motions that convey worth and significance. Orthodox rituals are symbolic. They are linked to our faith. We repeat the prayers and motions over and over because they work for us. The goal of the worship is communion with God. If a certain worship works, you repeat it again and again.

I belive you can admit that the LRC has her own rituals and tradition (which are nothing but man-made things). Am I right?

Besides, your own behavior must be ritualistic. You brush your teeth and you have meals at certain time. You give flowers as a token of appreciation. You present a wedding to your bride. You pray in the evening and the morning. You ask the Lord to bless the food you eat. You thank the Lord for the food. They are all rituals. And you do them for a reason. They have a meaning and they effectively work for you.

We do these things for a reason, not because of ritual. To brush ones teeth every day is good health practice, and not because of a ritual. I eat when I am hungry and need food to survive, not because it is a certain time of the day. Actually, to eat at certain times of the day is more of a Western thing. In many cultures they eat because they are hungry not because it is a certain time of day - the body's own hunger mechanisms is the healthiest 'meal clock' . Prayer is not a ritual it is more of a conversation. For that reason we do not need to pray the same things every Sunday from a liturgical book. When I speak to my family for example, I do not speak to them the same things every day out of a book, that would be weird. But that is how you treat God. You believe that if you do things a certain way and say the same things the same way that it "works". What you want to say to God has already been prepared for you and written in a book, so you cannot even say what you might want to say for that moment. When you want to have a conversation with your wife do you write it down in a book first and then read to her from the book? No. So you treat God as a kind of machine not as a person.

One of the "rituals" in the Bible is to refer to the church as "the church in <locality name>". This is a clear pattern of the Bible, so I do not know why the Orthodox do not follow it, if you like rituals so much. The 7 churches mentioned in Revelation, they all spoke Greek I presume, why they did not call themselves the Greek Orthodox church in Corinth, and Greek Orthodox church in Ephesus? etc. They only referred to themselves by their locality, not their language or nationality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical said that I don't understand the lampstands, which is probably true at some level. But I haven't been expounding on them; rather critiquing the crude, simplistic, myopic and self-centered exposition of Mssrs Lee & Co.

Here's why I find it so unsatisfactory. The Apocalypse is as subjective and idiosyncratic as its author, John. This was the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, not Paul or James etc. The author, like his Mentor, liked to speak (write) in parables. Jesus would teach in pictures, then leave the puzzled crowds with, "He who has ears to hear, let them hear." The disciples privately would hear the explanation.

Notice that the epistles to the 7 Asian churches end similarly: "He who has ears to hear, let them hear. ."

Meaning, John's disciples would hear private exposition. Now the exposition was orally transmitted, and is not extant, but we have supporting inter-testamental documents and most importantly we have the Fathers who within the scope of at least some of the oral tradition. But the post-Calvinist "me and my Bible" world of 19th and early 20th century Protestant fundamentalism (Nee and Lee) would have none of that. What it meant to Nee and Lee was sufficient. We had their texts, their logic, their unmet needs read onto the situation and that equalled God's speaking for today. Or so we were told. In this context was the local-church-centric lampstand exposition come forth.

I just hope to clear up your confusion about what the lampstand is and how many lampstands there actually are.

The bible tells us simply and plainly that:

Revelation 1:20 ..."the seven lampstands are the seven churches".

It doesn't get much harder than that. Lampstand = church. When Jesus said "I will take away your lampstand" he meant "I will take away your church" (Revelation 2:5). This actually happened I believe in history - the church at Ephesus was disbanded or destroyed, by the invading Goths I believe (or someone like that).

Conversely, if there is a church in a locality, then they must have a lamp stand. What else can we learn from verse 20? How many churches in each city? One. How many lampstands per city? One. How many churches in each city have a lampstand? Only one.

Once we understand there can only be one lampstand in each city, the next question is which church is qualified to be that one lampstand? Is it the Catholic, Orthodox, us, others? We all make the claim to be that one lampstand in the city. So do the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist and LRC each have a lampstand? No, only one in each city can have a lampstand. Maybe it is the Orthodox which has the lampstand - InChristAlone must believe this.

What is the biblical pattern? The genuine lampstand must be the one that matches the pattern of the bible - the church which is named only by the locality in which it dwells.

Now for a really easy quiz, which of the following are the odd one out?

a)Church in Ephesus
b)Church in Corinth
c) Church in London
d)Roman Catholic Church in London

Answer is d) I think. a),b),c) must have lampstands, because they exist. If these churches do not exist then there is no lampstand.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I just hope to clear up your confusion about what the lampstand is and how many lampstands there actually are.

The bible tells us simply and plainly that:

Revelation 1:20 ..."the seven lampstands are the seven churches".

It doesn't get much harder than that. Lampstand = church. When Jesus said "I will take away your lampstand" he meant "I will take away your church" (Revelation 2:5). This actually happened I believe in history - the church at Ephesus was disbanded or destroyed, by the invading Goths I believe (or someone like that).

Conversely, if there is a church in a locality, then they must have a lamp stand. What else can we learn from verse 20? How many churches in each city? One. How many lampstands per city? One. How many churches in each city have a lampstand? Only one.

Once we understand there can only be one lampstand in each city, the next question is which church is qualified to be that one lampstand? Is it the Catholic, Orthodox, us, others? We all make the claim to be that one lampstand in the city. So do the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist and LRC each have a lampstand? No, only one in each city can have a lampstand. Maybe it is the Orthodox which has the lampstand - InChristAlone must believe this.

What is the biblical pattern? The genuine lampstand must be the one that matches the pattern of the bible - the church which is named only by the locality in which it dwells.

Now for a really easy quiz, which of the following are the odd one out?

a)Church in Ephesus
b)Church in Corinth
c) Church in London
d)Roman Catholic Church in London

Answer is d) I think. a),b),c) must have lampstands, because they exist. If these churches do not exist then there is no lampstand.

So the church in Jerusalem didn't exist, per the apostle John, because it didn't have one of the seven lampstands? Antioch? Not a legitimate local church?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So the church in Jerusalem didn't exist, per the apostle John, because it didn't have one of the seven lampstands? Antioch? Not a legitimate local church?

Of course the biblical pattern applies to more than just the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation. So Jerusalem and Antioch must have each had a lampstand as well.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course the biblical pattern applies to more than just the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation. So Jerusalem and Antioch must have each had a lampstand as well.

But seven signifies completion in God's move. So there are just seven consecutive chronological stages of the church's history. Therefore there are actually many many lampstands in reality, but just seven in type.

Sort of like one spirit is actually seven spirits, and/but one church is seven churches.

So seven is seven, or seven is one, or seven stands for many, depending on the hermeneutical needs. Simple.

Just be simple, don't be hardened, drop your concepts and eat that tree.

And don't worry about the Abyssinian Orthodox church, where it fits in. It's in there somewhere. Don't think about it: you might get confused. Be simple.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But seven signifies completion in God's move. So there are just seven consecutive chronological stages of the church's history. Therefore there are actually many many lampstands in reality, but just seven in type.

Sort of like one spirit is actually seven spirits, and/but one church is seven churches.

So seven is seven, or seven is one, or seven stands for many, depending on the hermeneutical needs. Simple.

Just be simple, don't be hardened, drop your concepts and eat that tree.

And don't worry about the Abyssinian Orthodox church, where it fits in. It's in there somewhere. Don't think about it: you might get confused. Be simple.

Simplicity is best in many cases - Ockham was right. There is the reality and the types, as you rightly said. The reality is I am a human. But being made in the image of God, I also typify God. The churches are just people, but they also typify God's glory, as represented by the light shining from the golden lampstands - Matt 5:15. There is a unity between the 7 churches like you said, one Spirit is 7. The 7 churches are one church in reality - there is only one church.

Re: Abyssinian Orthodox church - no where in the Bible do the churches feel the need to name themselves after their nationality. Despite the fact that the early churches all spoke Greek and so did the apostle Paul, we find no case of them referring to themselves as Greek. This is why it is strange that a church called the Greek Orthodox church would exist in London, or New York, or wherever they may be, and if they believed themselves to be the genuine lampstand in those cities, they did not think to call themselves after the pattern found in the Bible "church in London" etc.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"If the gates of Hell prevailed against it even for one day, then that Scripture is wrong. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit will always teach and guide the Church, and lead it into all Truth. As Christians we have to believe that that Scripture is true, and that God has always preserved and kept His Church alive and well." (An Eastern Orthodox author).

If the gates of Hell prevailed against "it" (the church) even for one moment, then that was not the church. It is man who is wrong. Man tries to identify, define, describe the church but who can know the church but the one who died and gave Himself for it?

Just my thought---
Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

..This is why it is strange that a church called the Greek Orthodox church would exist in London, or New York, or wherever they may be, and if they believed themselves to be the genuine lampstand in those cities, they did not think to call themselves after the pattern found in the Bible "church in London" etc.

Since you are so hung up on church names, where in the Bible did we get names for Paul's or John's or Peter's ministries to justify all the names LSM uses?

And where's that verse justifying your printing presses? Paul distinctly told us about using "scrolls of parchment." And a legal team to sue all critics? And a real estate team to manage all your real estate? And ...

LSM's own checkered history has disqualified you from judging anyone else.

[Evangelical]

The only name the church uses is the name of the locality. You will not find a different name on the church building front. The ministry is distinct entity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ministry is distinct entity.

And the local churches are formally and officially "affiliated with", and informally "one with" the ministry, just as the head with the body. The ministry is the head of the local church-associated fellowships. The whole name thing is just a shell game to separate, isolate, and ultimately capture the flock: the church is of, for, and unto the ministry and the minister.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Re: Abyssinian Orthodox church - no where in the Bible do the churches feel the need to name themselves after their nationality. .

The Abyssinians (Ethiopians) are a people. The Bible says, "every people (Gk: ethnos) tribe and tongue." (cf Rev 7:9)

The record in Acts plainly states that Philip delivered the gospel message to an Ethiopian, without recording the city of destination. By so little you dismiss God's children?

The "testimony of Jesus" is not the church, the Body, the ministry, the present truth (so-called), the central lane of God's economy (so-called), or the local church posited by Nee or Lee. The testimony of Jesus is the declaration of faith that Jesus is Lord; delivered by individual mouths and collective assemblies (Gk: ekklesia). Meetings. Gatherings. It's all so much simpler than your ground of locality, which ensnares, entangles, and ultimately defrauds the believers of their birthright.

With the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess: of Jesus and His saving power, the Father's sending love, and the Holy Spirit's revelation. Don't be led astray to organizational formulations and ecclesiastical programmes. They're works of men, however carefully concocted and assiduously presented. I meet with the church (ekklesia). My allegiance is to Jesus. The elders in my church are aware of my "affiliation" and they're fine with that. No chance of that kind of understanding in the LC.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The Abyssinians (Ethiopians) are a people. The Bible says, "every people (Gk: ethnos) tribe and tongue." (cf Rev 7:9)

The record in Acts plainly states that Philip delivered the gospel message to an Ethiopian, without recording the city of destination. By so little you dismiss God's children?

The "testimony of Jesus" is not the church, the Body, the ministry, the present truth (so-called), the central lane of God's economy (so-called), or the local church posited by Nee or Lee. The testimony of Jesus is the declaration of faith that Jesus is Lord; delivered by individual mouths and collective assemblies (Gk: ekklesia). Meetings. Gatherings. It's all so much simpler than your ground of locality, which ensnares, entangles, and ultimately defrauds the believers of their birthright.

With the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess: of Jesus and His saving power, the Father's sending love, and the Holy Spirit's revelation. Don't be led astray to organizational formulations and ecclesiastical programmes. They're works of men, however carefully concocted and assiduously presented. I meet with the church (ekklesia). My allegiance is to Jesus. The elders in my church are aware of my "affiliation" and they're fine with that. No chance of that kind of understanding in the LC.

Revelation 19:10 says the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, or specifically, the message given in the book of Revelation, and everything revealed about Christ, that is proclaimed and held in the face of opposition and ignorance.

Revelation 12:17 says the genuine church keeps the testimony of Jesus:

Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring--those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The only name the church uses is the name of the locality. You will not find a different name on the church building front. The ministry is distinct entity.

Once again straining gnats and passing camels.

Let me get this straight. All other churches are condemned simply for posting a name. All other ministries are condemned for not teaching God's "economy."

There you have it folks.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once again straining gnats and passing camels.

Let me get this straight. All other churches are condemned simply for posting a name. All other ministries are condemned for not teaching God's "economy."

There you have it folks.

Just a name? Names are important. That's why people go to great lengths to give their child a good name. If someone's wife took another man's name she would be condemned for sure. Or if a person named their child Hitler they would be condemned as well. Names are many times more important than the Orthodox belief that everyone else follows a different Jesus just because they believe the bread and wine to be just symbols.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The thing is, with the communion bread and wine, nothing happens to it, the bread and wine is not changed, so it is not a mystery. You have been taught that something happens. But your own senses tells you that it is still bread and wine, it tastes the same, looks the same, and if it was studied chemically before and after it would be exactly the same. A mystery is something that happens that cannot be explained. Since nothing has happened to the bread and wine, then it cannot be a mystery. Real mysteries involve something happening that cannot be explained, e.g. water tastes like wine. A belief is not a mystery - just believing something to be true does not make it mysterious. A mystery involves something tangible that cannot be explained. Tongues of fire, rushing wind, a puff of smoke? Anything happen? No, nothing happens after the Priest prays over the elements on the table. The only thing that has happened is mass delusion of gullible minds that something has happened. Because we do not believe in the same delusion because there is no mystery about it, then you believe we do not have the same faith in Jesus.

Evangelical, do you see baptism as a Mystery or is it just a symbol for you? If it's just a symbol, then why does the Lord urge on the importance of baptism? If baptism is a Mystery, did you see the Holy Spirit descending on you? Or maybe you saw some lightning and fumes?

Since you like to see patterns in the New Testament, I would like you to ponder on this pattern:

With ages, after Adam and Eve had lost communion with God, people lost their knowledge about God. Only Jews believed in God. Other nations denied their Creator.

When Jesus, God the Son, came down on earth and dwelled among people, most of people rejected Him. They didn’t believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. They saw Him as a mere mortal, not God.

Jesus came to restore the lost communion between God and man. However, many of the Lord’s desciples left Him when He told them: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51 ESV

"So the Jews grumbled about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” John 6:41-42

"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:52-56 ESV

"When many of His disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” John 6:60-64

Please check also these verses: Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-23. (It can be one more pattern to ponder on).

The verses and their pattern say about the Lord's real presence in the Eucharist.

The early Church and all ancient churches believed and believe in the actual body and blood. Just check "History - Patristic Period": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Evangelical, brother, please pray and decide for yourself, where you stand and which pattern you follow. Do you deny the Lord or believe in Him?

God bless.

PS I don't really like Pascal's Wager that much but it can be related to the question. And it has something to ponder on as well.

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Revelation 12:17 says the genuine church keeps the testimony of Jesus:

Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring--those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

It seems the focus of God's commands and the testimony of Jesus changed from "God loved the world and sent His Son" and "love your neighbor" in the gospels, and "whoever believes and confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved" in the epistles. Now, the commands of God and the testimony of Jesus is about "one church per city", and "the seven stages of the church", if you believe Witness Lee's exposition on Revelations 1 through 3.

Why does the number seven signify "sevenfold intensification" with the seven Spirits, but then "completion in God's move" with the seven churches in Asia? If you're going to be simple, at least be consistent. This doesn't at all look like Occam's razor to me. Where's textual evidence that John might have thought this way? No; it's rather about satisficing Lee's hermeneutical agenda.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

It seems the focus of God's commands and the testimony of Jesus changed from "God loved the world and sent His Son" and "love your neighbor" in the gospels, and "whoever believes and confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved" in the epistles. Now, the commands of God and the testimony of Jesus is about "one church per city", and "the seven stages of the church", if you believe Witness Lee's exposition on Revelations 1 through 3.

Why does the number seven signify "sevenfold intensification" with the seven Spirits, but then "completion in God's move" with the seven churches in Asia? If you're going to be simple, at least be consistent. This doesn't at all look like Occam's razor to me. Where's textual evidence that John might have thought this way? No; it's rather about satisficing Lee's hermeneutical agenda.

I would say the testimony of Jesus is all those things. As Lee would say, the "testimony of Jesus" is an all-inclusive term. But you err if you believe the testimony of Jesus has nothing to do with the church. We could also say that the testimony of Jesus is the church. The local church is about making the testimony of Jesus practical. The very existence of the church is because of the testimony of Jesus (his living, death, and resurrection). Did Jesus's living, death and resurrection result in Roman Catholicism? is Roman Catholicism the testimony of Jesus? No, it is the testimony of Roman Catholicism, the Pope, the Vatican. Only the local church which Christ established is the testimony of Jesus. At the time of the New Testament, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Corinth etc were the testimony of Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did Jesus's living, death and resurrection result in Roman Catholicism? is Roman Catholicism the testimony of Jesus? No, it is the testimony of Roman Catholicism, the Pope, the Vatican. Only the local church which Christ established is the testimony of Jesus. At the time of the New Testament, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Corinth etc were the testimony of Jesus.

I would say that the local church has been morphed into the testimony of Lee and the Blendeds, much the same as the RCC was the testimony of the Pope.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

...With the heart we believe and with the mouth we confess: of Jesus and His saving power, the Father's sending love, and the Holy Spirit's revelation. Don't be led astray to organizational formulations and ecclesiastical programmes. They're works of men, however carefully concocted and assiduously presented. I meet with the church (ekklesia). My allegiance is to Jesus...

Aron, I love this!

Nell

[InChristAlone]

Evangelical, English is not my native language. Please correct me if I miss your point.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Only the local church which Christ established is the testimony of Jesus. At the time of the New Testament, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Corinth etc were the testimony of Jesus.

Evangelical, in other words, you say that the New Testament Church was not centered upon the person and work of Jesus Christ but on a geographical location and its name. Am I right?

Let's say that's true. What makes you think that Jesus established the Local Church of Witness Lee? How is the Witness Lee's Local Church related to the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Corinth etc? Through the same testimony of geographical location? Do you really think that the church in Jerusalem, 1st century AD, and the church in New York, 2017, are the same church? Do they share the same history, theology, and the same faith in the actual body and blood of Christ? Or they just bear a similar pattern of their names?

Evangelical, I respect your confidence. But don't you find this odd when Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and those who are from other non-denominational churches -- they all share the same faith that the Church must be based on Christ and not on the ground of locality. Well, maybe for you, it all supports the idea of fallen Christianity. However, I think that the Lord didn't establish His Church on a locality. The Lord Himself is the cornerstone.

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." Ephesians 2:19-21 ESV

I might be mistaken but it seems to me that the LRC follows a similar pattern of Roman Catholics who believe that the Church is built on St Apostle Peter and on those who enherit his throne. While other Christians believe that the Church was not built upon a mere mortal, even as great as St Apostle Peter, but on his (along with other apostles') faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Once again, the cornerstone is Christ, not a man or a locality.

I spoke to a few Roman Catholics and each of them tried to convince me that the Church is built on St Peter. You are doing a similar thing, trying to convince us that the Church must be built on locality. At least that's how I understand you. I am sorry if I am wrong.

God bless.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just a name? Names are important. .

Yes, names are important.

-Christians on Campus
-Living Stream Ministry
-Continuing Steadfastly
-Full Time Training Anaheim
-Bibles for America
-Rhema, Inc.
-emanna
-Lord's Move to Europe
-Affirmation and Critique
-Defense and Confirmation Project
-Lord's recovery
-Local Church
-Shouters (WL called them this, from the podium; 20 million adherents [he thought] was too enticing and he "took a name")

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. The LC is a swamp of names, a cesspool. And all this from the group that decries anyone else who "takes a name other than Christ." And furthermore, where's the biblical description, much less prescription, of registering domain names, trademarks, copyrights, with the government?

"Oh, but everyone does it." Suddenly what everyone else does becomes the justification. Funny how that works.

Yes, names are important. Here, they indicate hypocrisy.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, do you see baptism as a Mystery or is it just a symbol for you? If it's just a symbol, then why does the Lord urges on the importance of baptism? If baptism is a Mystery, do you see the Holy Spirit descending on you? Or maybe you saw some lightning and fumes?

Baptism in the spirit would be a mystery - something actually happens, this can be verified and experienced.

I am wondering what you experience in the Eucharist that says to you something mysterious actually happening?

Even those who believe the elements to be purely symbolic do not deny the "real presence" in the sense of the Lord's presence in taking communion, the mystical union with the universal Body of Christ, the spiritual and sometimes physical (healing) benefits of doing so, and that though they are symbols, what they represent means they must not be taken in a loose way and treated like common food. I think all protestant denominations including the local churches do not disrespect it as "just a symbol".

However we do not believe that the elements change into the actual body and blood of Christ. Does this mean we are denying the Lord and follow a different Jesus?

We have to be careful when quoting the early church fathers that we do not take them out of context. For example when Ignatius writes "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.", the "they" are the gnostics - they abstained from the Eucharist because they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. They denied what the Eucharist represented, not a doctrine which says that the Eucharist changes into anything.

What is important about the "real presence" is not to believe a doctrine that the elements turn into anything, but that Christ is really present with us.

Luther wrote "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist"

"Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits"

The early church did not all believe in the change of the elements into anything.

Augustine wrote "“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). "

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).

So Augustine believed that to mistake the bread and wine for the actual body and blood of Christ is error.

[Evangelical]

InChristAlone,

We believe that Christ is the reason we meet together (Christ is the foundation) and locality is the practical way we should meet (we call this the ground). This is different to the denominations which say Christ is the reason to meet together and we should meet together because we like the same worship songs, agree on the same doctrine about method of baptism, or like the same pastor, or because "my mother and father was a Lutheran, so I am too". We meet based upon the location in which we live, not for any other reason like our worship song preferences or whether we agree on some minor doctrine or not like whether the baptismal water should be hot or cold.

Today if there are 10 Christians living in one street, they will all go to 10 different churches across the other side of the city because they like something better about each different church. In the Bible times they would have simply met together in the same street because they all lived in the same street (they met based upon locality, not any other reason). In the Bible times people met together simply because they all lived in the same city. They did not travel to a different church in another city just because there was a doctrine they disagreed with, or someone in the church they did not like or because they did not like the seats.

Today in each city there are many different churches each claiming to have Christ as their foundation. But they all look different and do things differently. If Christ is their foundation why is this? The reason is, even though Christ may be their foundation, they do not have the same ground of locality. The ground is what the foundation sits on. When we build a house, we not only make sure the foundation is solid, we also make sure the house is in a good area. We do not want to build the house next to a flood area of swamp. The foundation of our house may be perfect (Christ), but if we put that house in a swamp, people will have to walk through a swamp to get to our house. So the ground that the foundation of the house sits on is important.

We talk about the foundation versus the ground - they are different. For example, Christ may be the spiritual foundation of a group of Christians, but if they meet together only in nightclubs because they like dancing (let's call it a "dance church") then it is the nightclub which brings them together.

Today if there are a group of Christians in a city who believe in tongue-speaking, they will seek out other Christians who believe in the same - they will probably go to a pentecostal church which practices that and so they will feel comfortable. They have Christ as their foundation but tongue-speaking is their ground.

Today within one city are many churches that cater to everyone's comfort levels. We do not find that situation in the bible. We do not find any church in the bible using a name other than the place where they are. We do not find more than one church in each city. These are the biblical facts.

In the New Testament times, it was not tongue speaking or baptism or similar doctrines that brought everyone together - it was the locality. The locality is what brought the Christians together in the early church. For example, if you lived in Jerusalem you would go to the church in Jerusalem because you are in Jerusalem. You would not go to the "pentecostal church in Jerusalem" just because you believe in tongue speaking. You would not go to the 'baptist church in Jerusalem" just because you believe baptism is by immersion. The early Christians did not do that. Even we do not find a church just for Jewish Christians and one for gentile Christians in the bible - they all met together within the same city.

The ground of the Catholic church is the doctrine around St Peter as you said. The Lutheran church was grounded on the doctrines of Luther. The pentecostal churches were grounded on the doctrines of tongue speaking. The baptist churches were grounded on the doctrine of baptism by immersion. The Anglican church was grounded on the lusts of an English king and rebellion against the Pope. The Presbyterian church was built on the idea of the presbytery. We can see that today churches are grounded on things other than the place in which they exist. They are founded on Christ (spiritually) but are grounded in other things which divides them from all the other believers in their city.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Baptism in the spirit would be a mystery - something actually happens, this can be verified and experienced.

I am wondering what you experience in the Eucharist that says to you something mysterious actually happening?

Evangelical, your words about Baptism can be applied to the Eucharist as well. I can't say anything about my "great" spiritual experience, but yes, I feel the difference in my spiritual condition after the Holy Communion. Put it simple, I am less inclined to my passions and sins. And I don't think it is only psychological. There are many verified stories when people got healed from serious illnesses after receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

However we do not believe that the elements change into the actual body and blood of Christ. Does this mean we are denying the Lord and follow a different Jesus?

We also don't believe that the elements change. We take the consecrated bread and wine with the faith in Jesus Christ who says , 'This is My body ... this is My blood" (Luke 22:19, 20). There is never a statement that these gifts merely symbolise His Body and Blood.

From The Orthodox Study Bible:

"For the first thousand years of Christian history, when the Church was visibly one and undivided, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confessed this was a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood, but one cannot say how they become so.

The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought on the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church in A.D. 1054, was pressed by the rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. The sacrament, which only faith can comprehend, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist was unknown to the ancient Church.

Not surprisingly, one of the points of disagreement between Rome and the sixteenth-century reformers was the issue of transubstantiation. Unable to accept this explanation of the sacrament, the radical reformers, who were rationalists themselves, took up the opposite point of view: the gifts are nothing but bread and wine, period. They only represent Christ's Body and Blood; they have no spiritual reality. This third, symbol-only view helps explain the infrequency with which some Protestants partake of the Eucharist."

In my opinion, if you deny the spiritual reality in the consecrated bread and wine, and if you see them only as a symbol and not as the actual body and blood of Christ, then you are preaching a false gospel and a different Christ.

As far as I know, for many members of the LRC, including my wife, the cup and the bread are only symbols. Christ is not present in them.

PS "The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.

The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The Eucharist, because it belongs to God's Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

From John of Damascus: "If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable".

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eucharist

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to be careful when quoting the early church fathers that we do not take them out of context. For example when Ignatius writes "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.", the "they" are the gnostics - they abstained from the Eucharist because they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. They denied what the Eucharist represented, not a doctrine which says that the Eucharist changes into anything.

Exactly! However, St Ignatius of Antioch clearly says that for him, the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Augustine wrote "“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). "

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).

So Augustine believed that to mistake the bread and wine for the actual body and blood of Christ is error.

Are you sure you are not reading St Augustine out of context?

It was Augustine who said:

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426

[InChristAlone]

Evangelical, thank you for your kind reply and a good explanation of your point of view.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the New Testament times, it was not tongue speaking or baptism or similar doctrines that brought everyone together - it was the locality. The locality is what brought the Christians together in the early church.

"The Church has alway been the living manifestation of the Lord’s presence in the history of the mankind." (Kallistos Ware)

I believe it was not the locality but Christ who brought Christians together in the early Church. The early Church was one, unique and universal. If you lived in ancient Rome or Jerusalem, your choice was between the Church and some heretical groups. The unity of the Church was manifested in common faith, worship and communion in the Sacraments such as the Eucharist. Locality could be different. The Lord Himself, or the common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ was the cornerstone of the Church.

For example, "Several of the [Orthodox] autocephalous churches are de facto national churches, by far the largest being the Russian Church; however, it is not the criterion of nationality but rather the territorial principle that is the norm of organization in the Orthodox Church." (Bp. Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox Church")

So, church organization can be different due to historical reasons. What matters more is the common faith in the Lord. Christ cannot be divided. The unity of the Church, the body of Christ, is based on the fact that she has one head, the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23), and that working in her is one Holy Spirit who gives life to the body of the Church and unites all her members with Christ as her head.

In my opinion, WL just created one more division and called it the only genuine Christian Church. But the only connection between Church in Jerusalem, 1st century AD, and the Church in Jerusalem, established by the LRC, is the similar name.

Why do you want to restore the territorial principle of the early Church organization when you don't have the same faith? It is like to start building a house from the roof. (Even your practices are different. In the early Church, only members of the Church could receive the Holy Communion. But the LRC practices open communion).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, thank you for your kind reply and a good explanation of your point of view.

"The Church has alway been the living manifestation of the Lord’s presence in the history of the mankind." (Kallistos Ware)

So, I think that it was not the locality but Christ who brought Christians together in the early Church. The early Church was one. If you lived in ancient Rome or Jerusalem, your choice was between the Church and some heretical groups. The unity of the Church was manifested in common faith, worship and communion in the Sacraments such as the Eucharist. Locality could be different. The Lord Himself, or the common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ was the cornerstone of the Church.

For example, "Several of the [Orthodox] autocephalous churches are de facto national churches, by far the largest being the Russian Church; however, it is not the criterion of nationality but rather the territorial principle that is the norm of organization in the Orthodox Church." (Bp. Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox Church")

As I understand, the norm of church organization can be different. What matters more is the common faith. So, why do you want to restore the territorial principle of the early Church organization when you don't have the same faith? It is like to start building a house from the roof. (Even your practices are different. In the early Church, only the members of the Church could receive the Holy Communion. But the LRC practices open communion).

If we both have faith in Christ then we have a common faith. That is our basis for having an open communion. You seem to disagree with this, as you believe that if we don't believe that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ in a literal sense, then we do not believe in Christ. So you have put additional requirements on "the faith", it is more than just having faith for you.

It seems our belief is similar in the matter of territory or what we would call locality. You would visit the Orthodox church in London if you were in London, and would not visit the Lutheran church in London because you recognize that the sphere of the Orthodox is the whole city or region. That is, you do not see the Orthodox church as being one slice of the pie in the city but the whole pie.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we both have faith in Christ then we have a common faith. That is our basis for having an open communion. You seem to disagree with this, as you believe that if we don't believe that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ in a literal sense, then we do not believe in Christ. So you have put additional requirements on "the faith", it is more than just having faith for you.

It seems our belief is similar in the matter of territory or what we would call locality. You would visit the Orthodox church in London if you were in London, and would not visit the Lutheran church in London because you recognize that the sphere of the Orthodox is the whole city or region. That is, you do not see the Orthodox church as being one slice of the pie in the city but the whole pie.

Evangelical, I appreciate your comment. But I can't understand why Witness Lee holds to the territorial principle of the early Church. At the same time, he rejects closed communion. He doesn't seem to be consistent.

The idea of open communion is a modern concept. The early Church didn't know it. "It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that open communion became anything more than highly unusual. Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed Presbyterians, and Methodists all practiced closed communion at least until that time. That means for close to 1,900 years the sharing of communion between Christians of differing faith was quite exceptional."*

Justin Martyr (100-165AD) says in his Apology: "And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the person who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins… and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”

Yes, we share common, basic beliefs in our faith but we don't have a common faith. So, I find it odd that churches with conflicting theologies must have open communion. If members of these churches have a different understanding of the Mystery, how can they share the common cup? They don't have the unity of faith.

To practice open communion is like to practice "open marriage". "And it places us in danger; danger of an imaginary church, an imaginary faith, and an imaginary Christ that will some day disappear from our imaginations altogether."*

"According to the historic Christian teaching reflected in the early Church Fathers, admittance to Holy Communion means embracing the entire faith tradition of the body. Before Holy Communion can be received, communion must already be achieved.

In the patristic understanding then, to receive communion in a Lutheran church implies you have become a member of the Lutheran communion. To receive in a Presbyterian church is to profess union with the Reformed tradition. To receive communion in a Mormon church is to join oneself to Mormon doctrine and tradition and to place oneself in communion with all Mormons throughout the world. Whether we mean to do this or not, is not the point."*

The Eucharist is the supreme expression of the unity of the Church and not a means towards Christian unity. It is a sacrament of our unity with Christ and each other, when the union in faith is already there.

I am sorry, Evangelical. I don't have time to continue our interesting conversation. So, if you don't mind, I would like to stop it here. Thank you for your kind reply and thoughtful comments. I don't have any more questions. However, if you still have any questions, feel free to ask me. I will be glad to answer them if I can.

May the mercy and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

*“Monogamous Communion” A Defense of “Closed” Communion by Fr. Michael Shanbour

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, I appreciate your comment. But I can't understand why Witness Lee holds to the territorial principle of the early Church. At the same time, he rejects closed communion. He doesn't seem to be consistent.

The idea of open communion is a modern concept. The early Church didn't know it. "It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that open communion became anything more than highly unusual. Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed Presbyterians, and Methodists all practiced closed communion at least until that time. That means for close to 1,900 years the sharing of communion between Christians of differing faith was quite exceptional."*

Justin Martyr (100-165AD) says in his Apology: "And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the person who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins… and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”

Yes, we share common, basic beliefs in our faith but we don't have a common faith. So, I find it odd that churches with conflicting theologies must have open communion. If members of these churches have a different understanding of the Mystery, how can they share the common cup? They don't have the unity of faith.

To practice open communion is like to practice "open marriage". "And it places us in danger; danger of an imaginary church, an imaginary faith, and an imaginary Christ that will some day disappear from our imaginations altogether."*

"According to the historic Christian teaching reflected in the early Church Fathers, admittance to Holy Communion means embracing the entire faith tradition of the body. Before Holy Communion can be received, communion must already be achieved.

In the patristic understanding then, to receive communion in a Lutheran church implies you have become a member of the Lutheran communion. To receive in a Presbyterian church is to profess union with the Reformed tradition. To receive communion in a Mormon church is to join oneself to Mormon doctrine and tradition and to place oneself in communion with all Mormons throughout the world. Whether we mean to do this or not, is not the point."*

The Eucharist is the supreme expression of the unity of the Church and not a means towards Christian unity. It is a sacrament of our unity with Christ and each other, when the union in faith is already there.

I am sorry, Evangelical. I don't have time to continue our interesting conversation. So, if you don't mind, I would like to stop it here. Thank you for your kind reply and thoughtful comments. I don't have any more questions. However, if you still have any questions, feel free to ask me. I will be glad to answer them if I can.

May the mercy and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

*“Monogamous Communion” A Defense of “Closed” Communion by Fr. Michael Shanbour

Yes, the local churches are certainly more open and welcoming to all believers in the city than many denominations are. Yet some insist that we are the divisive ones, when our open communion policy shows otherwise. All of these denominations claim to have the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and then close its communion off to others not in their group. Obviously Christ cannot be present in all of the Eucharists at the same time, in the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic etc. I think Paul's words apply here "is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems our belief is similar in the matter of territory or what we would call locality. You would visit the Orthodox church in London if you were in London, and would not visit the Lutheran church in London because you recognize that the sphere of the Orthodox is the whole city or region. That is, you do not see the Orthodox church as being one slice of the pie in the city but the whole pie.

Forgive me for intruding on a conversation not mine. But I was considering the Orthodox faith, and a verse came to mind, in context of the "recovery" process as it has played out, and I wanted to comment, before mentioning a hypothetical trip to London. All of which is of course personal and perhaps irrelevant to the discussion here.

First, the verse:

Jeremiah 6:16 (NIV)
This is what the Lord says:
“Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

Now it seems to me that the "recovery" idea isn't a return to the ancient paths at all, but an idea springing up out of Protestantism, which, like Communism as a proposed replacement of Capitalism seemed fine in theory but was disastrous in actuality. By the time Nee showed up in the early 20th century, Brethrenism was splintered into quarreling factions, showing the dis-credited fruit of the ground of the "localism" idea. There was no "rest for the soul" in a Brethrenism where Brother A, B, and C, were arguing continuously with Brother D and E over doctrine, interpretation, allegiance, practice.

But "localism" still became an exceptional engine to remove the Chinese (who were ignorant of the Brethren saga) from the Western yoke, and it flourished in China under Nee. But in reality it was just another Protestant sect based on the shifting sands of its charismatic leader. Thus the ground went from localism to the Jerusalem Principle, to "getting in line" and "handing over" and so on. New winds of teachings blowing in every other week. No ancient paths. No rest for the soul.

The EO, on the other hand, have access to the Fathers, many of whom were connected to the apostles, or to those who knew them. Thus the continuity to the ancient paths was preserved. Not in toto, of course; much has been lost. And much, unfortunately, was added. But the paths are there, accessible to those who seek. But the modern "recovery" and "restoration" movements which flow out of Protestantism are merely cries to return home, based on the dis-connect of the age. Actually, Calvin was like the Fathers in that he looked at scripture and said, "This means that"; but Calvin was separated by a vast gap of time and culture, and the Fathers still knew the apostles through personal connection. So I prefer the ancient readings to the modern. Not entirely, of course: I'm in the modern age. But my point is that the modern, subjective, fundamentalist "me and my Bible" readings (e.g., WN and WL) are extremely inferior to readings informed by the ancients. It reminds me of a young athletic man, extremely strong, virile, fast, partly logical, but lacking experience, discretion, humility, and wisdom.

Now, as a Protestant and son of Protestants, I may seek out Protestant fellowship in my visit to London. But I'm always open to fellowship with the EO brethren, anytime anywhere. Because I've found some of them to be extremely profitable to my Christian journey. Some of the best stuff I've ever read was from an EO scholar.

In sum, I don't feel constrained by some "church". I accept the paths of history, what's happened. When I meet with the EO brethren, I don't argue church, but together we seek Christ. And He meets with us. "Were not our hearts burning, as He opened the scriptures before us?" That is the bread from heaven. They know my great love for them. and accept me as I am. I don't get hung up on localism, or the eucharist. Paul said, "Don't let your freedom become a stumbling for others". Others see things differently than I, have different cultures, practices, histories. I don't force conformity. If I did, what freedom is that? "In Christ you have been set free; stand fast therefore and don't once again be entangled in the yoke of slavery."

[aron]

Three more comments.

Originally Posted by aron

But "localism" turned out to be an exceptional engine to remove the Chinese from the Western yoke, and it flourished in China. But in reality it was just another Protestant sect based on the shifting sands of its charismatic leader. Thus the ground went from localism to the Jerusalem Principle, to "getting in line" and "handing over" and so on. New winds of teachings blowing in every other week. No ancient paths..

The shattered and divisive fruit of the localism idea as promulgated by Nee and Lee has been exposed today as the British Brethren were a century before, and its traction is mostly limited to Chinese, who like the culture, and college students who're ignorant and easily swayed by emotionalism. (In a nearby "locality" LSM church the Chinese and the non-Chinese meet in separate meeting halls, and have no connection with each other).

Originally Posted by aron

But the modern "recovery" and "restoration" movements which flow out of Protestantism are merely cries to return home, based on the dis-connect of the age..

The reason I say this is because if you told an EO-affiliated believer about the need to "recover the oneness" they would look at you in bewilderment. Recover the oneness of the faith? They already have it! No, this need has emerged from divided Protestantism. Just google "one true church" or "true church" or "recovered church" or "restored church" and you'll see a dozen post-Protestant splinter cells, all trying to do what Nee did, and the Brethren before him.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't force conformity. If I did, what freedom is that? "In Christ you have been set free; stand fast therefore and don't once again be entangled in the yoke of slavery."

The key for me was Paul's advice to the Corinthians. "In what you were when Christ found you, there remain". I accept history. I was born into a Protestant culture, and "born again" in a Protestant meeting, under their gospel. I don't need to form a new group, to leave one group and join another. I need to repent of my sins, to confess, to live a new life in Christ. And whomever I meet on the way, may the blessed joy of salvation cover us, and fill our hearts. There's no need to get hung up on "church" as a litmus test of fellowship.

[aron]

Yes, names are important. Here, they indicate hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

Here's another one. Amana Trust.

https://www.amanatrust.org.uk/

"Amana Trust is a registered charity in the UK"

[Cal]

Again, the no-name thing and the do-you-label-your-group-rightly thing are just smokescreens.

They inspire confused true believers looking for something to make themselves feel special, but are really simply ways to discredit everyone else but their little enclave, whether they realize it or not.

It manifestly doesn't work to help oneness. Note that in several cities more than one group calls itself "the church in ...". So if this means of arriving at oneness is so foolproof, what you do you do when more than one group in the city takes the label? At that point the LCM's true method of discernment is exposed--that being "the right one is the one we like."

Calling yourself "the church in Whoville" doesn't make you the church there anymore than calling yourself a ham sandwich makes you one. Also, not calling yourself a ham sandwich doesn't turn you into a chicken taco. You are what you are. It is not determined by what you call yourself. The Bible never implies anything of the sort.

A MOTA strip skewering this nonsense coming soon....

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Calling yourself "the church in Whoville" doesn't make you the church there anymore than calling yourself a ham sandwich makes you one. Also, not calling yourself a ham sandwich doesn't turn you into a chicken taco. You are what you are. It is not determined by what you call yourself. The Bible never implies anything of the sort.

Your argument is flawed because you do not consider the other side.

If any woman came along and called herself by my name, that does not make her my wife. This is what you are rightly said.

But what you are missing is that my wife is my wife and that is why she calls herself by my name and not another man's. This is what you have missed - my real and genuine wife would call herself by a proper name.

Giving our self a name does not make us the church. But if we are the church we would give ourselves an appropriate name (in fact we do not see locality as a name, but what we are). Jesus said that He will build His church, He did not say "I will build my church, now go think of a name for it". Giving their church a name is what all fake churches do, when there is nothing of the sort in the New Testament (ignoring this fact, you people think you follow the Bible as your authority? that is worthy of a comic I think).

We do not call ourselves "the church in Whoville" and then think that makes us the church.

It is because we are the church that is why we call ourselves "the church in Whoville".

If we are the church why would we call ourselves by something different?

Different churches thinking they are a genuine church are going around calling themselves by different names. If they were the real deal then why would they? Why would a genuine McDonald's store change its name to Burger King if it was not the real McDonald's? Why do supposedly genuine churches call themselves by other names?

[Evangelical]

The Orthodox and Catholic claim they are the genuine church just because they can tell a story about how they are related to the first apostles and point to their history.
This attitude is very similar to the Pharisees who said "Abraham is our Father" to which Jesus replied "And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham." (Matt 3:9) . This is like these churches when they say "the apostle Peter, or the apostles was our founder".

Contrary to what Orthodox and Catholics claim with them pointing to bespoke out of context examples in many cases, the ancient writings of the fathers etc are in a number of ways quite diverse and do not present a unified and uniform set of doctrines that we can point to and say "yep, that's the truth, 100%".

The Protestant theologians have studied the early writings as intensively as any Catholic or Orthodox and have not reached any uniform conclusions. This is particularly true on the matter of transubstantiation or the "real presence" - there are even wide differences between protestant denominations.

Historically, there was diverse opinion in the early church as reflected by early church writings. There was no uniformly held view of transubstantiation until it was made an enforceable doctrine in the middle ages. Then the Catholic and Orthodox claim "it has always been so".

The local churches are more broad in the sense that a person only needs to be a believer in Christ to receive communion. We do not exclude anyone from taking communion who has not been baptized in the local church. We do not exclude anyone from taking communion based upon their doctrinal opinion concerning the nature of the bread and wine.

If you meet with the EO, they probably treat you as an outsider "yet to be converted", which means yet to be baptized to become a full communicate member of their church. They take these things very seriously, and believe you and I follow a different Jesus, a different faith. So it is not really fellowship between brethren.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we are the church why would we call ourselves by something different?

The real question is not, "If you are the church why would you call ourselves by something different?"

The real question is, "If you are the church then who should you be and what should you be doing?"

You have a name like you are the real McDonald's, then when I happen to visit, I find out you are not the real thing. You may have burgers, but there is no "King."

Instead of a church centered upon Christ and His word, I find a people centered on practices, and using the teachings of Witness Lee like toys and tools to hurt others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real question is not, "If you are the church why would you call ourselves by something different?"

The real question is, "If you are the church then who should you be and what should you be doing?"

You have a name like you are the real McDonald's, then when I happen to visit, I find out you are not the real thing. You may have burgers, but there is no "King."

Instead of a church centered upon Christ and His word, I find a people centered on practices, and using the teachings of Witness Lee like toys and tools to hurt others.

Anyone involved in business, marketing or commerce knows that the brand is more important than the product. McDonald's are a classic example, the food is rubbish, but people buy it because of the brand. Without their name, McDonald's are just a place that sells rubbish burgers. Even if a quality burger store set up shop next to McDonald's, I doubt they would be able to compete.

[UntoHim]

My brother Evangelical. I want to commend you for all your efforts in this thread. If nothing else, you've represented the Local Church teachings regarding this matter to a tee.

I'm sure you're familiar with our Lord's "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17. In a portion of this prayer to the Father, the Lord Jesus used this term "your name" several times. I cannot recall what Witness Lee taught regarding this, maybe you can recall. Nevertheless, I'm more interested in what YOU think the Lord meant. What name was he referring to?

I'm not saying that I have some totally definitive answer to this, only that I think it is very relevant to the question at hand.

v6) I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
vrs11,12) Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.

Take your time, think about it.
-

[Evangelical]

"your name" refers to the name Father. Jesus revealed to the disciples that God is their Father. It is hard to discuss this without reference to John 5:43 and the fact that Jesus is also the Father. That is, the name of the Father and the name of the Son are not three names, as recited in baptismal formulas and believed by the tritheists, but one name.

[UntoHim]

"I have come in my Father’s name"

Was your father's name "father", or was that his title? Did your uncle call your father "father", or did he call him by his name (cf: "John")

Your "tritheists" blast is irrelevant to the matter at hand, although if you're going to bring in "Jesus is the Father", then we may be at an impasse no matter what.

"Our Father, who art in heaven". Jesus was on the earth at the time. The Father was in heaven. Or are heaven and earth the same thing to you?
-

[Evangelical]

You are treating the name Father like a common title "father". What you fail to realize is that for Jesus to reveal God to the disciples as Father and not "God" or "Jehovah" must have been a big revelation to them. They were confused by it in fact, as indicated by their request for Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus did not give us any other name for the Father than just Father. Jesus always addresses the Father as Father, so that is His name. The name of the Father is just Father.It is both a name and a title I guess. The name of the Spirit is "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit", the name of the Father is "Father". We call the Son by His name - Jesus, Lord Jesus. We call the Father by His name, saying "abba Father" or "heavenly Father".

Jesus said "John 14:6 " No one comes to the Father except through me."". Many Christians have interpreted this to mean that Jesus merely gives us the right teaching so that by following it we may enter heaven and find the Father.

This is not what Jesus is saying however. Jesus said to know Him is to know the Father, to see Jesus is to see the Father:

John 14:7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Jesus said in John 14:9 "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?". In other words, Jesus's presence with the disciples was the Father's presence, because Jesus was the embodiment of the Father, God in human form.

If Jesus is not the Father, then you must believe in two Gods, or you must believe that Jesus is not God. If we believe that Jesus is God then we must also believe that Jesus is the Father. Jesus cannot be God and not hte Father because if Jesus is God and the Father is God, then logically Jesus is the Father. If you believe there is a "Father God" and a "son God" then you believe in two God's, not one.

In fact, if we unknowingly pray to two or three different Gods by not recognizing the oneness of the Trinity, we are then automatically participating in Mystery Babylon, Jezebel and Baal worship. There is strong evidence that the text “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” was added to 1 John 5:7.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Three more comments.The shattered and divisive fruit of the localism idea as promulgated by Nee and Lee has been exposed today as the British Brethren were a century before, and its traction is mostly limited to Chinese, who like the culture, and college students who're ignorant and easily swayed by emotionalism. (In a nearby "locality" LSM church the Chinese and the non-Chinese meet in separate meeting halls, and have no connection with each other).The reason I say this is because if you told an EO-affiliated believer about the need to "recover the oneness" they would look at you in bewilderment. Recover the oneness of the faith? They already have it! No, this need has emerged from divided Protestantism. Just google "one true church" or "true church" or "recovered church" or "restored church" and you'll see a dozen post-Protestant splinter cells, all trying to do what Nee did, and the Brethren before him.

The key for me was Paul's advice to the Corinthians. "In what you were when Christ found you, there remain". I accept history. I was born into a Protestant culture, and "born again" in a Protestant meeting, under their gospel. I don't need to form a new group, to leave one group and join another. I need to repent of my sins, to confess, to live a new life in Christ. And whomever I meet on the way, may the blessed joy of salvation cover us, and fill our hearts. There's no need to get hung up on "church" as a litmus test of fellowship.

They have oneness of their faith, they don't have oneness of "the faith" (what they call their faith, to the exclusion of all others). They do not consider believers of other churches to be of "the faith", so they are divisive.

Your application of the verse in Corinthians is misapplied. The context is whether or not a person needs to be circumcised (or do anything for that matter, such as divorce their spouse, or leave their master, if a slave) to be considered part of the church. The verse does not mean that we should remain in Babylon.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The verse does not mean that we should remain in Babylon.

I do get your point. But go back to your first post: "The Bible never shows God leading anyone out of a church." In this case, the designations "church" and "Babylon" are entirely discretionary, or subjective. Whatever you do collectively is deemed "church"; the rest are supposedly consigned to Mystery Babylon. From so little, another stilted and myopic fringe sect is brought forth.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone involved in business, marketing or commerce knows that the brand is more important than the product. .

Yes, that's what it is: branding and marketing. All designed to suck in gullible humans. Do you think the Holy Spirit is impressed with your marketing schemes? Do you think that the Holy Spirit comes from the sign on your lawn?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's another one. Amana Trust.
÷
https://www.amanatrust.org.uk/

"Amana Trust is a registered charity in the UK"

A registered charity in the UK?! Do you visit the poor and widows in their affliction? The sick, give healing? Feed the hungry? Do any good works whatever?

No, it's all about promoting the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. How crass.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus did not give us any other name for the Father than just Father. Jesus always addresses the Father as Father, so that is His name. The name of the Father is just Father. It is both a name and a title I guess. .

You guess? Here's a clue: the Father's name is holy. Therefore it was neither written out or spoken aloud publicly. Jesus always honored this strongly-adhered Jewish convention, from what I can see.

Second clue: the hard "J" sound was a 19th-century German interpolation. Nigel Tomes has already covered this in some detail, here on the LCD forum.

You know, a relationship is complicated. It isn't just a guy taking a girl out to dinner. There are ups and downs, good times and bad. The relationship endures, grows. Jesus called God His Father based on such a relationship. They were stated to be one, and the record shows nothing but this. When Jesus spoke, the Father spoke. Jesus always saw the Father, and did His works. The Son and the Father are one. And the Son gave the disciples the Father's name. He fully expressed the Father, in word and in deed. The Father was no longer hidden, mysterious, but tangible and real. "Whom we handled, and our hands touched." This was the Word made flesh. On this we who have not seen yet believe. This becomes the basis of our own relationship, with each other, and with God our Father.

"Our Father who art in heaven; Your name is holy." Etc. It's all there in black and white. All we have to do is live it.

[InChristAlone]

It is a fruitless conversation but brother UntoHim raised a good question.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...Jesus was the embodiment of the Father, God in human form.

If Jesus is not the Father, then you must believe in two Gods, or you must believe that Jesus is not God. If we believe that Jesus is God then we must also believe that Jesus is the Father. Jesus cannot be God and not hte Father because if Jesus is God and the Father is God, then logically Jesus is the Father. If you believe there is a "Father God" and a "son God" then you believe in two God's, not one.

In fact, if we unknowingly pray to two or three different Gods by not recognizing the oneness of the Trinity, we are then automatically participating in Mystery Babylon, Jezebel and Baal worship. There is strong evidence that the text “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” was added to 1 John 5:7.

Evangelical, we can say that John is a person. But we can't say that a person is John. Anyone who has seen John has seen a man. But not anyone who has seen a man has seen the John. It is just human logic. However, the concept of the Holy Trinity is not based on the rational thinking. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.

You say that God the Father is God the Son. But that is a different gospel and a different Christ. The early Church has always believed that "the Son and Word is “in the beginning with God” (John 1:12) as is the Holy Spirit, and that the Three are eternally distinct. The Son is “of God” and the Spirit is “of God.” The Son and the Spirit are not merely aspects of God, without, so to speak, a life and existence of their own. How strange it would be to imagine, for example, that when the Son becomes man and prays to his Father and acts in obedience to Him, it is all an illusion with no reality in fact, a sort of divine presentation played before the world with no reason or truth for it at all."

Nowhere in the Bible, Jesus says that He is the Father. Moreover, He says "the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Why didn't Jesus just say that He is the Father?

St. Basil the Great writes, "We should understand in the creation the original cause of the Father as a founding cause, the cause of the Son as a creative, and the cause of the Spirit as an implementing one." Thus the Father is the "Creator of all things", the Son is the one "through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit is the one "in whom are all things". Everything that He (God the Creator) had made ... was very good" (Gen. 1:31), because "first He conceived, and His conception was a work carried out by His Word, and perfectly by His Spirit.

[InChristAlone]

Evangelical, your understanding of the Trinity is rather strange. It must be Modalism, also called Sabellianism, "the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons." The early Church didn't preach this heretical teaching. Why did WL pick it up?

Since you don't not hold the Trinitarian doctrine, here is some more explanations why Christians believe in the Trinity.

Fr. Brendan Pelphrey, in his "Explaining the Trinity to Muslims", says, "Christians believe that God is love. The Trinity defines love: the love of the Father for the Son, and the Son for the Father, of the Father for the Spirit, of the Son for the Spirit, and of the Spirit for the Father and the Son. It is, finally, a love which is so great that it went out of itself. This is why God created and sustains all that exists.

Actually there are over fifty references to the Trinity in the Old Testament. Some examples are in Genesis 18, Psalm 110, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 48, Isaiah 49, and Zechariah 3. Perhaps the most striking of the “theophanies” (appearances of God) in the Old Testament is the story of the visit of God to Abraham at Mamre (Genesis 18).

The Bible says that the LORD (Hebrew, YHWH) appeared to Abraham in the form of three angels. In the story, the verbs used for the angels are sometimes plural and sometimes singular: thus there are three, but there is only One. Historically, this passage left rabbis puzzled as they tried to interpret it. How could there be One who is Three? But in the Book of Genesis, God is always referred to both in the singular, as one God (El), and in the plural (Elohim). This is illustrated in Genesis 1:26: “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Even the first two verses of the Bible (Genesis 1:1-3) refer to the Trinity: God created, the Spirit hovered over the Deep, and the Word of God (Dabar) created light.

Does it make sense for God to be One and Three at the same time?

To the prophet Isaiah, God said, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways” (Isaiah 55:09). The logic of God is not our logic. That is why what is impossible for man, is possible for God (compare Matthew 19:26). We are not God, and we cannot know the essence of God.

However, the “mathematics” of God, as revealed in Christ, are: 1 + 1 + 1= 1.

Therefore, the nature of the Trinity is considered by the Church to be a mystery which, as God’s creatures, we cannot explain. However, it can be illustrated by the idea of “co-inherence” in contemporary physics. Science has discovered that certain sub-atomic particles must be considered as both separate particles, and as existing only within (or “one with”) other particles at the same time. Historically, the Church has used the example of three separate candle flames that come together and burn as one: the flames are all one, even though they are three.

The Greek word used for the “co-inherence” of the Three Persons of the Trinity is perichoresis, which literally means “running in a circle.” It means that when we see the Son, we see the Father, who has sent the Spirit to reveal the Son, who gives the Spirit, who draws us to the Father, who is only seen in the Son… Each One reveals the Others, and is found only in, and with, the other divine Persons.

This mode of existence defines what it means to be “person.” We cannot be real persons in isolation. Christians believe that our own nature, as persons, is a mirror of the person-hood of the Holy Trinity."

"Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It is a fruitless conversation but brother UntoHim raised a good question.


Evangelical, we can say that John is a person. But we can't say that a person is John. Anyone who has seen John has seen a man. But not anyone who has seen a man has seen the John. It is just human logic. However, the concept of the Holy Trinity is not based on the rational thinking. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.

You say that God the Father is God the Son. But that is a different gospel and a different Christ. The early Church has always believed that "the Son and Word is “in the beginning with God” (John 1:12) as is the Holy Spirit, and that the Three are eternally distinct. The Son is “of God” and the Spirit is “of God.” The Son and the Spirit are not merely aspects of God, without, so to speak, a life and existence of their own. How strange it would be to imagine, for example, that when the Son becomes man and prays to his Father and acts in obedience to Him, it is all an illusion with no reality in fact, a sort of divine presentation played before the world with no reason or truth for it at all."

Nowhere in the Bible, Jesus says that He is the Father. Moreover, He says "the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Why didn't Jesus just say that He is the Father?

St. Basil the Great writes, "We should understand in the creation the original cause of the Father as a founding cause, the cause of the Son as a creative, and the cause of the Spirit as an implementing one." Thus the Father is the "Creator of all things", the Son is the one "through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit is the one "in whom are all things". Everything that He (God the Creator) had made ... was very good" (Gen. 1:31), because "first He conceived, and His conception was a work carried out by His Word, and perfectly by His Spirit.

If the Father, Son and Spirit have a life and existence of their own, and if each is God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, then you believe in three God's, not one. Jesus said "I and the Father are one", indicating the inseparable unity between the Father, Son and Spirit, such that if one ceased to exist, the others would cease to exist as well. Wherever the Son went, the Father went, and wherever the Father went, the Son went, whatever the Father did, Jesus did:

John 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

Only God can give life, yet Jesus demonstrated His equality with the Father to give life:

John 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

John 6:40 " I will raise them up at the last day"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

A registered charity in the UK?! Do you visit the poor and widows in their affliction? The sick, give healing? Feed the hungry? Do any good works whatever?

No, it's all about promoting the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. How crass.

According to the law in the UK, the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, your understanding of the Trinity is rather strange. It must be Modalism, also called Sabellianism, "the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons."

It is not modalism. Modalism rejects the idea of three persons. We believe in the Trinity, with a slight modification - we reject the idea that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit based upon the Scripture 2 Cor 3:17 and Isaiah 9:6. Our version of the Trinity doctrine matches the bible perfectly.

Isaiah 9:6 says:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I think we can all accept that Jesus is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Prince of Peace. But you reject the idea that Jesus is the Everlasting Father, even though the verse clearly says that. You have to change the Word of God to fit your doctrine. But we change the doctrine to fit the Word of God.

You rightly said that 1+1+1 = 1. But you also believe that 1 <> 1 <> 1 where <> means "not equal to". In contrast, we believe 1 = 1 = 1 . We are not modalist, we are Trinitarian for we accept that 1+1+1 = 1. But we can see that the bible says the Son is the everlasting Father, so 1 = 1. And the Son is the Spirit, so 1=1. So we have 1=1=1.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You guess? Here's a clue: the Father's name is holy. Therefore it was neither written out or spoken aloud publicly. Jesus always honored this strongly-adhered Jewish convention, from what I can see.

Second clue: the hard "J" sound was a 19th-century German interpolation. Nigel Tomes has already covered this in some detail, here on the LCD forum.

You know, a relationship is complicated. It isn't just a guy taking a girl out to dinner. There are ups and downs, good times and bad. The relationship endures, grows. Jesus called God His Father based on such a relationship. They were stated to be one, and the record shows nothing but this. When Jesus spoke, the Father spoke. Jesus always saw the Father, and did His works. The Son and the Father are one. And the Son gave the disciples the Father's name. He fully expressed the Father, in word and in deed. The Father was no longer hidden, mysterious, but tangible and real. "Whom we handled, and our hands touched." This was the Word made flesh. On this we who have not seen yet believe. This becomes the basis of our own relationship, with each other, and with God our Father.

"Our Father who art in heaven; Your name is holy." Etc. It's all there in black and white. All we have to do is live it.

Seems like you've been reading Jewish superstitions or something about the name of God, which I will now dispel. The Father's name is actually no secret, and a lightning bolt won't hit you if you say God's name out loud or write it down.

God's name was revealed and written here:

"Then Moses said to God, 'Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?' 14 And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you,'' (Exodus 3:13-14).

So God has already revealed His name to us, and it is "I AM".

Jesus did not only reject the superstitious tradition of not saying God's name, Jesus smashed their tradition completely by calling Himself by God's name "I AM", at least twice, in fact in John 8:24 and John 8:58:

John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Unfortunately many English versions (including the Recovery Version) do not capitalise I AM in this verse, so it reads as if Jesus whispered "i am". What He was really saying is I AM. Why it is not capitalised? I think because there are ulterior motives at play from those KJV translators. Anyway, whether it is failing to properly capitalise some words, or just insert a new verse altogether - nothing is beyond the translators to tamper with God's Word, to make unsuspecting English readers like you and I believe that Jesus is not the Father. The Recovery Version at least explains it correctly in the footnotes, but unfortunately fails to capitalise I AM to make it clear.

The Aramaic version really hits it home, and does it justice by not only capitalising but spelling out I AM THE LIVING GOD:
"Yeshua said to them: “Timeless truth I speak to you: Before Abraham would exist, I AM THE LIVING GOD.”"

These English translators did it again here:

KJV:
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

The "he" in "I am he" was inserted by the translators as indicated by it being italicised in the KJV, proving they missed the point of Jesus's words completely. It should just read I AM - "if ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins".

Thankfully the Aramaic Bible does it proper justice again:

“I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins.”

There is no doubt that Jesus referred to Himself by the name of God, "I AM". The same name that is given in Exodus 3:13-14. In John 8:59 the Jews were about to stone him for such blasphemy.

Ellicott's commentary says:

(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him.—At last the meaning of His words flashes upon them. They had heard this I AM before (John 8:24) without perceiving that in it He applied to Himself the name Jehovah. Now there is no room for doubt.

Jesus calling Himself by the name of the Father "I AM" is perhaps the strongest proof we have that Jesus is the Father. If Jesus is not the Father, then for him to call Himself "I AM" amounts to blasphemy, and the Jews were right to stone Him. Only the Father, as Jesus was, would call Himself by His true name I AM.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the Father, Son and Spirit have a life and existence of their own, and if each is God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, then you believe in three God's, not one. Jesus said "I and the Father are one", indicating the inseparable unity between the Father, Son and Spirit, such that if one ceased to exist, the others would cease to exist as well.

Evangelical, in my humble opinion, you hold a modification of Modalism when you say that the Father is the Son. But God is not a chameleon or someone with a reversible jacket. He doesn't change disguises.

"One in essence, God is Trinity in Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and indivisible." In these few words is expressed the core of the Christian teachings of the Most Holy Trinity."

I believe that the Holy Trinity, is three distinct, divine persons (hypostases), without overlap or modality among them, who share one divine essence (ousia Greek οὐσία)— uncreated, immaterial and eternal.

And you believe that Christ didn't exist as Christ, the Son of God. For you, Christ is just a manifestation of God the Father.

Can you say that "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."? (John 3:16)

How do you understand this verse?

You believe in "a God who is not truly self-revealed in the history of Israel and its Messiah, Jesus Christ: the biblical presentation of "Father," "Son, and "Spirit" are but temporary manifestations of deity, with the true deity ultimately hidden behind them.

Modalism is a seductive heresy because it seems to make sense of Scripture, yet it ultimately relativizes Scripture and invites us to search for a deity who, like the Wizard of Oz, ultimately remains hidden behind the biblical curtain. If modalism is true, there is no reason to believe that God is anything like our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Only the mystery of the Triune God provides the answer to these indicated difficulties. It reveals that the love of God has never been inactive, without expression: The Persons of the Most Holy Trinity from eternity live one with another in continuous contact of love. The Father loves the Son (John 5:20, 3:35), and calls Him beloved (Mt. 3:17, 17:5 et al). The Son says of Himself: "I love the Father" (John 14:31). Deeply true are the short, but expressive words of the blessed Augustine: "The mystery of the Christian Trinity is the mystery of Godly love. You see the Trinity, if you see love."

[Evangelical]

I agree that the Trinity is three distinct, co-existing, eternal divine Persons without overlap or modality. I have already said that we are not modalists, and a modalist would not agree with the Trinitarian doctrine.

However, we do not reject what the Bible says about Jesus being the Father as you do. We not only believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but also that He is the Everlasting Father as Isaiah clearly says. Also, Jesus called Himself the "I AM", which is the name of the Father. The Trinity doctrine as it is traditionally taught is flawed because it does not match the Bible in its entirety. You are forced to explain how Jesus is not the everlasting Father, when Isaiah clearly says He is. And if you believe that Jesus is not the Father, and that Jesus is another kind of Father then you believe in two Fathers, which is ridiculous. And if you believe that the Spirit of Christ is not the very Christ Himself, then you must believe in two Christ's and two Spirits. Jesus is as much the everlasting Father as He is "Mighty God". There is no issue to say that Jesus is Mighty God, or Jesus is the Father, no issue at all. It is not blasphemy or heretical to say "God is God".

When you say the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit, you are saying "God is not God is not God" while at the same time you say the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God. That defies logic. Our view says, "God is God is God" and matches the Bible perfectly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Although this is a mystery, Witness Lee's analogy to electricity is not bad. However, I think my analogy to the internet is probably better.

To access Amazon.com you would use your computer (your spirit) which is connected to the internet via a router (The Spirit) and your router is connected to Amazon's servers via a transmission service (Jesus) which connects my computer to the worldwide web (God the Father)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your argument is flawed because you do not consider the other side.

If any woman came along and called herself by my name, that does not make her my wife. This is what you are rightly said.

But what you are missing is that my wife is my wife and that is why she calls herself by my name and not another man's. This is what you have missed - my real and genuine wife would call herself by a proper name.

Giving our self a name does not make us the church. But if we are the church we would give ourselves an appropriate name (in fact we do not see locality as a name, but what we are).

If we are the church why would we call ourselves by something different?

Different churches thinking they are a genuine church are going around calling themselves by different names. If they were the real deal then why would they? Why would a genuine McDonald's store change its name to Burger King if it was not the real McDonald's? Why do supposedly genuine churches call themselves by other names?

In the first place your husband/wife analogy is very flawed. The Bible not only does not command the wife to take the same name as the husband, it gives us no examples of this happening. Adam didn't name his wife Adam, he named her Eve. Abraham's wife was named Sarah. Issac's was Rebeeca. Hosea was married to Gomer. (Maybe she should have changed her name!) So the idea that the Biblical example of marriage show us that the wife takes the husband's name is just flawed. It's a false analogy. It's not biblical. It doesn't mean it's wrong in our culture, but it's really wrong to project from a purely cultural practice some supposed truth of God.

There is nothing wrong with asking the questions you ask. Your mistake is in believing that they lead to the conclusion you draw. They don't. You ask the questions and then assume that your natural reaction to them is the truth. It isn't. It's just your reaction.

The fact is the Bible never says that if you give the church a name then it is not a church, any more than if you give ministry a name it is not a ministry. You should not and cannot conclude for the rest of humanity that a group with a name cannot be a church. Neither does the Bible say or imply that church without a name is more a church that one that doesn't have a name. There is no concept in the Bible of something be "more of" a church that something else. You are not the "best church" in town because you don't "have a name." If you want to believe your church shouldn't have a name that's your business. But you have absolutely no Biblical ground to say that one with a name is not a church. You might as well be declaring that if they don't baptize right they are not a church. It's just terrible thinking.

Again, Lee's teachings on this matter were not to achieve true oneness. They were to define things in a way that benefited his movement and discredited all others. And guess what, that's all they have or ever will accomplish-- which is why you are in an insignificant movement at odds with all others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although this is a mystery, Witness Lee's analogy to electricity is not bad. However, I think my analogy to the internet is probably better.

To access Amazon.com you would use your computer (your spirit) which is connected to the internet via a router (The Spirit) and your router is connected to Amazon's servers via a transmission service (Jesus) which connects my computer to the worldwide web (God the Father)

It's good but I think there is another way to describe it. Your spirit is the computer and clicking your computer mouse is how to "exercise your spirit". God is Google.com because it answers your questions and tells you what to do. Jesus is the router which connects you to the Father (to Google.com) because no man may access Google without the router. The Spirit is the data which travels to your computer via the router from Google.com.

God wanted us to access the internet so badly that He gave us His only router so that by connecting it and configuring it properly we may have unlimited high speed internet.

Why bother praying? Just ask Google.

[Evangelical]

A name other than the locality, creates a subdivision which automatically disqualifies that group from encompassing all believers in the city. Why would a church give itself a name if it believes itself to be the genuine church in the locality? If it does not believe itself to be the genuine church in the locality encompassing all believers then how is it not just a sect? The Greek Orthodox church in London for example thinks itself to be "the church" in the whole of London, because it can point to some historical heritage and lineage. But it is a sect not a church like the ones mentioned in the Bible, because it is a group of Greek speaking people who believe in the Orthodox doctrine living in an English speaking country. It cannot claim to represent all believers in the city, regardless of their language and doctrinal beliefs. It cannot claim, to represent or include all English speaking people, all Londoners. Only a church called "the church in London" can do that, which is open and welcoming to all believers in the city. A sect on the other hand, like the Orthodox church, has closed communion and does not welcome all believers in the city, thus disqualifying themselves from being the genuine church in the city.

The biblical ground is the fact that we find no church in the bible named after any person, language, nationality, doctrine, or practice. It is notable that despite all of the churches mentioned in the Bible speaking Greek, we do not find them referred to as "Greek" anything.

Prefixing our church with a name other than its locality creates a sub-division (or sect) within that locality that excludes everyone not of that prefix type. If the Greek Orthodox church in London was truly "the church in London" then they would call themselves such - they existed well before us, yet did not think to lay title to that claim, despite their doctrines believing as such. Rather, they are an outpost, for the Greek community in London, and in no way represent the entirety of believers in the city like in the Bible the "church in Jerusalem" would have represented the entirety of believers in Jerusalem.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the law in the UK, the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose.

Charity used to be helping those who needed help. In other words, love expressed practically. Today, under UK law, a multi-level marketing scheme can be a charity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Seems like you've been reading Jewish superstitions or something about the name of God, which I will now dispel. The Father's name is actually no secret, and a lightning bolt won't hit you if you say God's name out loud or write it down.

I didn't say it was secret. As to Jewish superstitions, many were that, but many Jewish customs Jesus had great respect for. In the Protestant tradition, and Nee et al are firmly in this camp, we totally missed the Jewishness of the cultural backdrop. And our readings are thin. Lee would say, "This means..."; which meant that "This means this to me, right now, to take care of this perceived need on the ground." Every new moon we got whipsawed by a new "flow from the throne." No, I think it's worth taking a minute and considering Jewish custom. Not to follow slavishly, but to consider ourselves in light of God's word. What God spoke to the Jews was not nullified by Jesus' death. It remains relevant.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Isaiah 9:6 says:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I think we can all accept that Jesus is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Prince of Peace. But you reject the idea that Jesus is the Everlasting Father, even though the verse clearly says that. You have to change the Word of God to fit your doctrine. But we change the doctrine to fit the Word of God.

Evangelical, the literal translation of the Everlasting Father is the Father of eternity. Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, Colossians 1:16 gives the added detail that God created “all things” through Jesus Christ. Therefore, is that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. Thus, Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people.

But my main point is not the prophecy but your Old Testament. I think you know the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. I mean, you know which texts is older and which text is newer. And I believe you know which text was used by the Apostles.

The bible of the Orthodox church is based on the Septuagint. And Isaiah 9:6 in Septuagint sounds like this:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

I hope you understand that your theology can be based on an error.

God bless.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Charity used to be helping those who needed help. In other words, love expressed practically. Today, under UK law, a multi-level marketing scheme can be a charity.

Well, now the Muslims do that, and so I think we need as many Christian charities as possible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, the literal translation of the Everlasting Father is the Father of eternity. Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, Colossians 1:16 gives the added detail that God created “all things” through Jesus Christ. Therefore, is that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. Thus, Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people.

If Jesus is the Father of eternity. Then Jesus is the Father. Or do you believe there are two Father? God the Father of eternity, and God the Father (the real Father)?

You must believe that the Septuagint is the only true and correct translation - all our Bible translations are in error.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A name other than the locality, creates a subdivision which automatically disqualifies that group from encompassing all believers in the city. Why would a church give itself a name if it believes itself to be the genuine church in the locality? I

Your premises are flawed. The fact is not taking a name (in the spirit the LCM does) assumes that everyone must meet with you, which is a even worse attitude. Churches welcome all believers, but that doesn't mean they have to assume their organizational instance encompasses all believers, and the Bible never tells us they have to. This is all LCM extrapolation.

Again you are confusing nature with instance. Each assembly by nature is the church, but that doesn't mean there has to be one organizational unit which perfectly matches the spiritual reality of the oneness of the whole church, any more than there should be one organizational unit that exactly matches the spiritual reality of the oneness of the church on the whole earth.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that at a practical organizational level the church must be arranged at the city level. It simply declares that there is in fact one church per city, just as there is one church on earth. The one church on earth does not preclude there being multiple practical churches on earth. Likewise, the one church in the city does not preclude there being multiple practical churches. The mention of houses churches gives ample ground for this being a acceptable conclusion, and casts your stance in the light of being unreasonable and ironically divisive.

Basically you have just reached false conclusions about the nature of the church and the local church. Actually you haven't reached that conclusion, you've are just aping Lee's conclusion because you think you are supposed to.

What you fail to admit is that your model does not work. As I've said, there is nothing to stop multiple churches from calling themselves "the church in..." This actually is the case in several cities. All it produces is competition, animosity and mutual denunciations. Hardly oneness. It just leads to playing king of the hill. Which is exactly what you've been doing since you've got here. It's stunning that you can't see that.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Jesus is the Father of eternity. Then Jesus is the Father. Or do you believe there are two Father? God the Father of eternity, and God the Father (the real Father)?

You must believe that the Septuagint is the only true and correct translation - all our Bible translations are in error.

Evangelical, I believe in one Heavenly Father but since Jesus is the last Adam, I can say that Jesus is the Father of a new humanity united with and in the divine life. Jesus Christ was the One through whom God created all things, including mankind.

I don't need to believe that the Septuagint is the only true and correct translation. I just consider the fact: Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. And you have based your theology on the words which don't exist in the Septuagint.

Personally, I like you and your efforts to protect your faith. Especially because I can't have a conversation like this with my wife. But I don't understand why you reject the obvious facts.

God bless.

PS I can agree with you that all Bible translations are in error. The question is whom can we trust? Where is the guaranty that an error in translation doesn't beget errant theology? In other words, where is the criterion of truth?

I hope you will agree that it is not the Bible but the Church which is the pillar and ground of truth. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the criterion of truth is the consensus of the Fathers. Only when most of the Fathers from different ages and places reach a consensus on a certain issue, then we can say that it is the teaching of the Church.

Some Fathers could have their errant teachings but we always look for the consensus. No one of the Fathers taught that God the Father is God the Son.

St Gregory [Nazianzus] the Theologian (330-389/90 AD) wrote: " “When I say God, I mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit... the Godhead is undivided in separate persons.”

The Church does not teach that God sometimes appears in the form of Father, then as Son and still other times as Spirit. Rather, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three entirely distinct modes of existence, yet perfectly united and sharing the same divine essence. And so, experiencing God in this way, the early Church spoke of the doctrine of the Holly Trinity in terms of ”three persons in one essence”.

The concept of the Holy Trinity is not my personal opinion or the personal opinion of my priest. That is the consensus of the Fathers. That is my criterion of truth.

You don't need to reply to me. Brother Evangelical, please, ponder on this: where is your criterion of truth? If all Bible translations are in error, who and why do you trust? If Witness Lee built his theology on errors, is there a reason to trust his personal opinion? Where is the guaranty that one's man opinion is always right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A name other than the locality, creates a subdivision which automatically disqualifies that group from encompassing all believers in the city. Why would a church give itself a name if it believes itself to be the genuine church in the locality?

Demanding that a church use only one ministry creates a far worse subdivision, it is far more divisive than using any name.

Why would a church insist that her members receive only one ministry knowing how divisive that is, and how it violates nearly every verse in I Corinthians?

By limiting a local church to only one ministry, you have divided her from all the believers in that city.

Read Nee's book. It specifically details what you are doing as dividing the body of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Demanding that a church use only one ministry creates a far worse subdivision, it is far more divisive than using any name.

Why would a church insist that her members receive only one ministry knowing how divisive that is, and how it violates nearly every verse in I Corinthians?

By limiting a local church to only one ministry, you have divided her from all the believers in that city.

Read Nee's book. It specifically details what you are doing as dividing the body of Christ.

How can something be more divisive than a division? There is no such thing as "more divisive".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your premises are flawed. The fact is not taking a name (in the spirit the LCM does) assumes that everyone must meet with you, which is a even worse attitude. Churches welcome all believers, but that doesn't mean they have to assume their organizational instance encompasses all believers, and the Bible never tells us they have to. This is all LCM extrapolation.

Again you are confusing nature with instance. Each assembly by nature is the church, but that doesn't mean there has to be one organizational unit which perfectly matches the spiritual reality of the oneness of the whole church, any more than there should be one organizational unit that exactly matches the spiritual reality of the oneness of the church on the whole earth.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that at a practical organizational level the church must be arranged at the city level. It simply declares that there is in fact one church per city, just as there is one church on earth. The one church on earth does not preclude there being multiple practical churches on earth. Likewise, the one church in the city does not preclude there being multiple practical churches. The mention of houses churches gives ample ground for this being a acceptable conclusion, and casts your stance in the light of being unreasonable and ironically divisive.

Basically you have just reached false conclusions about the nature of the church and the local church. Actually you haven't reached that conclusion, you've are just aping Lee's conclusion because you think you are supposed to.

What you fail to admit is that your model does not work. As I've said, there is nothing to stop multiple churches from calling themselves "the church in..." This actually is the case in several cities. All it produces is competition, animosity and mutual denunciations. Hardly oneness. It just leads to playing king of the hill. Which is exactly what you've been doing since you've got here. It's stunning that you can't see that.

What you fail to understand is that the fact that there was one church per city, is because it was organized that way. It did not just happen, by chance to be one church per city, that is how it was planned and arranged.
If it were otherwise, we would find in the Bible, like you said, multiple organizations and churches within the one city.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no such thing as "more divisive".

Jesus made gradations of sin, and punishments. Or do you not recall?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus made gradations of sin, and punishments. Or do you not recall?

Yes but that's not the point. If something is already a division, then nothing can be "far more divisive".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, I believe in one Heavenly Father but since Jesus is the last Adam, I can say that Jesus is the Father of a new humanity united with and in the divine life. Jesus Christ was the One through whom God created all things, including mankind.

I don't need to believe that the Septuagint is the only true and correct translation. I just consider the fact: Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. And you have based your theology on the words which don't exist in the Septuagint.

Personally, I like you and your efforts to protect your faith. Especially because I can't have a conversation like this with my wife. But I don't understand why you reject the obvious facts.

God bless.

PS I can agree with you that all Bible translations are in error. The question is whom can we trust? Where is the guaranty that an error in translation doesn't beget errant theology? In other words, where is the criterion of truth?

I hope you will agree that it is not the Bible but the Church which is the pillar and ground of truth. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the criterion of truth is the consensus of the Fathers. Only when most of the Fathers from different ages and places reach a consensus on a certain issue, then we can say that it is the teaching of the Church.

Some Fathers could have their errant teachings but we always look for the consensus. No one of the Fathers taught that God the Father is God the Son.

St Gregory [Nazianzus] the Theologian (330-389/90 AD) wrote: " “When I say God, I mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit... the Godhead is undivided in separate persons.”

The Church does not teach that God sometimes appears in the form of Father, then as Son and still other times as Spirit. Rather, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three entirely distinct modes of existence, yet perfectly united and sharing the same divine essence. And so, experiencing God in this way, the early Church spoke of the doctrine of the Holly Trinity in terms of ”three persons in one essence”.

The concept of the Holy Trinity is not my personal opinion or the personal opinion of my priest. That is the consensus of the Fathers. That is my criterion of truth.

You don't need to reply to me. Brother Evangelical, please, ponder on this: where is your criterion of truth? If all Bible translations are in error, who and why do you trust? If Witness Lee built his theology on errors, is there a reason to trust his personal opinion? Where is the guaranty that one's man opinion is always right?

First Proof: Disagreement between Early Church Fathers and the Apostles

You base your faith on the early church fathers. But I can show that the early church fathers contradict the Bible on the matter of baptism, so basing ones faith on the early church fathers is not as solid as basing it on the Bible which records the practices and beliefs of the apostles.

Tertullian states - "He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into three persons, at each several mention of their names.

Tertullian states that baptism is done using three names, and presumably three immersions, or three sprinklings or dippings, as still practiced by Trinitarians today, in your church and other churches.

However the Bible is consistent in its record of the apostles only ever using the name of the Son, the name of Jesus Christ. Whether it is salvation, preaching, baptism, or healing - the bible only records the name of Jesus being used, not three names each referring to one person of the Trinity.

Acts 2:38 proves that baptism was in the name of Jesus Christ with one name and one name only:

Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. "

Peter mentioned only baptism in the name of the Son, proving that to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is equivalent to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Because the name of Jesus represents His person, we can see that Jesus is equivalent to the whole Trinity - Father, Son and Spirit.

However your church believes that the name of Christ is insufficient, so you feel the need to invoke three names, instead of just one name. That is, you do not realize that Christ is the embodiment of the whole Trinity, and is fully God. You believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and that baptism in the name of Christ only means you have baptised into only 1/3 of God. That is why you also invoke the name of the Father and the Spirit, because you believe that baptism in the name of Christ is baptism into only 1/3 of God.

The Bible record of baptisms and the apostle's words only mentions baptism in the name of Christ, and not the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, and I think that is something you will find is unchanged between your version of the Bible and mine.

The Bible records no where that a person is immersed three times with several mention of their names. These passages also prove that baptism was into the name of Christ and not a Trinitarian formula or three persons, which is Tritheism:

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 6:4 "aren't you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus "

Romans 6:3 "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? "

Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women.

Acts 10:48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

And whose name do we call on to be saved when we are baptized?

Acts 22:16 "16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It does not say "calling on the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

Acts 4:12 says there is only one name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

In Acts 2:38 Peter says we are to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

No where, not even one instance, do we find the apostles baptizing "in the name of the Father, name of the Son, name of the Holy Spirit". It clearly says "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ", not "baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit".

Second Proof: the Trinitarian Baptism formula added to the book of Matthew

Matthew 28:19 in the KJV and other versions says "19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

You would claim that this baptismal formula is how Jesus wanted us to baptize - Tertullion would agree as I have shown previously.

Unfortunately for you and your church, the earliest records of the gospel of Matthew do not contain this verse, and say something quite different:

“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 whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157)

“Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)

These quotations of Matthew by the early church author Eusebius match perfectly the rest of the Bible where the apostles only ever baptize in the name of Christ, never into a 3-name and 3-person formula.

The bible is consistent in its presentation of the name of Jesus Christ, as the name by which we are saved, healed, delivered, and baptized.

This is confirmed by the prominent early church father Eusebius never once referring to the three-name baptismal formula, and the earliest manuscripts available of the book of Matthew not containing Matthew 28:19.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says regarding Matthew 28:19:

“It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.” The same Encyclopedia further states that: “The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition.”

There is evidence that every Christian for the first 300 years was baptized in the name of Jesus only and this can be seen from the Catholic Catechism which says:

The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing “in the name (person) of Jesus.” -- a better translation would be “into the name (person) of Jesus.” Only in the 4th Century did the formula “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” become customary.” — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)

This means your church's traditions regarding the Trinitarian baptismal formula are from the 4th Century, not the time when the Gospel of Matthew was written, so you cannot claim to be the original church the apostles established. This is clear proof that the early church fathers perverted the Word of God. Your criterion of truth of the Fathers is therefore something as changeable and corruptible as the doctrines of men.

I hope you would be as diligent and consistent to consider these matters regarding the Trinitarian formula in the New Testament as much as you have been concerning our discussion involving the Septuagint. If I am not mistaken, your New Testament contains the Trinitarian 3-name formula in Matthew 28:19. Then your New Testament version also suffers from tampering by Trinitarians.

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) said in Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger

This means that it did not come from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. But that is okay for you, because you can pretend that everything between AD 33 and the 4th century was exactly the same as you believe today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can something be more divisive than a division? There is no such thing as "more divisive".

Sure there is. Ever see LSM/DCP divide a local church? Then they divide another local church, and another, and another. Then they file lawsuits. Then they slander the brothers. Then they steal the name of the church!

A church with no name gets their name stolen!

That is, by definition, MORE DIVISIVE.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you fail to understand is that the fact that there was one church per city, is because it was organized that way. It did not just happen, by chance to be one church per city, that is how it was planned and arranged.

If this were so, we would find evidence in the N.T.

But we find none.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If this were so, we would find evidence in the N.T.

But we find none.

That's where you are mistaken.

Acts 14:23 says elders were appointed in every church:

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

Titus 1:5 says elders were appointed in every city:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Compare these two verses and we don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the apostle organized the churches as one church per city, no doubt under the practical guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the apostle did not implement a "good idea at the time" according to his taste and preference, but something revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit.

If this was not so, it would somewhat resemble the situation today of multiple churches according to taste and preference - the early church had just as many opinions, preferences and disagreements as we do today, yet never separate into multiple churches in the city. Why? Because despite their divisions, that Paul mentions (1 Cor 11:18), they never used them as an excuse to split, and Paul discourages them from doing so (1 Cor 1:10).

If this was done haphazardly or the church organization was down to individual preference of members, we would not see such uniformity and conformity - we would see a few churches in this city, a few churches in that city, we might even see a church in the ocean or maybe they had a "boat church" - church on a boat. Because of the schism between Jew and Gentile, we should see at least a Jewish Church and a Gentile Church within the one city - but there was no such thing. The disciples must have traveled together, by boat, and this would take time. They must have had "two or three" fellowship together, but no where do they mention anything of a "boat church".

The consistency of the Bible points to the ordered arrangement of churches by elders overseeing one church per city. Couple this with the fact that the Bible no where uses the plural churches in reference to the city, proves there was one church per city. It was Paul's letter to the "church in Corinth" not the "churches in Corinth". For practical reasons there would have been multiple house assemblies in each city, but these individual assemblies are never referred to as different churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's where you are mistaken.

Acts 14:23 says elders were appointed in every church:

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed."

Titus 1:5 says elders were appointed in every city:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Compare these two verses and we don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the apostle arranged the churches as one church per city.

Couple this with the fact that the Bible no where uses the plural churches in reference to the city, proves there was one church per city. It was Paul's letter to the "church in Corinth" not the "churches in Corinth".

For practical reasons there would have been multiple house assemblies in each city, but these individual assemblies are never referred to as different churches.

Descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no teaching here from the Apostles.

The LC practice of appointing elders proves that they never applied these verses. In actuality, the LCM practiced Ignatius' pattern of Bishops.

LC leaders like Lee, Philips, Chu, etc. never were apostles to those churches where they appointed elders. Many LC's they never even visited, so how could they be "apostles" to those LCs?

They weren't. They were Bishops. They trained elders and sent them to take charge of LC's. Happened all the time. That's what Bishops did.

That's not what Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 say.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no teaching here from the Apostles.

The LC practice of appointing elders proves that they never applied these verses. In actuality, the LCM practiced Ignatius' pattern of Bishops.

LC leaders like Lee, Philips, Chu, etc. never were apostles to those churches where they appointed elders. Many LC's they never even visited, so how could they be "apostles" to those LCs?

They weren't. They were Bishops. They trained elders and sent them to take charge of LC's. Happened all the time. That's what Bishops did.

That's not what Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 say.

But because it is God's Word, which is God's teaching, even a descriptive passage is prescriptive. This is why we descriptively understand Genesis 2:24 to apply prescriptively to marriage:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The descriptive passages reveal God's plan, which must be for a purpose.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But because it is God's Word, which is God's teaching, even a descriptive passage is prescriptive. This is why we descriptively understand Genesis 2:24 to apply prescriptively to marriage:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The descriptive passages reveal God's plan, which must be for a purpose.

That verse sounds pretty prescriptive to me, and it's also backed up by many other verses. Ever hear that principle of letting the Bible interpret the Bible?

If every descriptive verse in the Bible was prescriptive, then we should all have "all things common." Right? Hey can I borrow your car this weekend?

Do you have any idea what your kind of Christian life would be like? Just cast your net on the other side! Don't worry, just pick up that rattlesnake! When in trouble just appeal to Caesar! Just bring two fish to the love feast!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That verse sounds pretty prescriptive to me, and it's also backed up by many other verses. Ever hear that principle of letting the Bible interpret the Bible?

If every descriptive verse in the Bible was prescriptive, then we should all have "all things common." Right? Hey can I borrow your car this weekend?

Do you have any idea what your kind of Christian life would be like? Just cast your net on the other side! Don't worry, just pick up that rattlesnake! When in trouble just appeal to Caesar! Just bring two fish to the love feast!

Yes I let the bible interpret the bible before when I gave two verses, one mentioning elders in the city, the other mentioning elders in the church, and add to that Revelation which mentions one church per city, and also Paul's letters written only ever to one church per city. In fact, I have word searched church and city in the bible (easy to do online) and it is remarkable just how consistent the words church and city are.

Hypothetically, if the Bible was written today and 2000 years from now people word searched the words "church" and "city" what would they get? Nothing as consistent as revealed in the ancient manuscripts.

You have not thought this prescriptive/descriptive argument through very well because I can just as easily point to these prescriptive verses:

Matt 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.

Matt 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away.

And no where does it say that these commands are not to be followed to the letter. No where, does it say you can disobey these prescriptive commands.

In fact, why don't I quote this one, which says if you disregard obeying Matt 5:29,30 you will be called least in the kingdom:

Matt 5:19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

Obviously we need to rightly discern between prescriptive/descriptive commands. The situation today is that denominational Christians will study and revere Paul's letter to the Corinthians, Paul's letter to the Ephesians (well, except the parts about head coverings, prophesying, and sectarianism), and never once realize that if the churches that Paul wrote to in the Bible were named by their city name, why on Earth are they are in a church with a different name or a church which does not believe it encompasses all the believers in the city ? I am sure that if there were any sects existing at the time of Paul (e.g. "the Church of Peter's Jewish Compromise", a denomination of Jewish believers who disagreed with Paul's view on mixing with gentiles) and the church in Corinth (the genuine church), they would not have been reading and revering Paul's writings. Furthermore, I am sure that Paul would not have intended his letters to be read by a divisive sect, or sub-division within all believers in the city. For example, I am sure that Paul did not intend his letters to be received by "the Jezebellian Church of Hedonism" within the city of Thyatira.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

First Proof: Disagreement between Early Church Fathers and the Apostles

The Bible record of baptisms and the apostle's words only mentions baptism in the name of Christ, and not the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, and I think that is something you will find is unchanged between your version of the Bible and mine.

The purpose of baptism is to unite a person to Christ. Through Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, we come to know the Father.

So, I don't find any disagreement. When the apostle Peter baptized someone in the name of Jesus Christ, he baptized him or her in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Trinity is indivisible: the Son has never been divided from the Father, nor the Holy Spirit from the Father or the Son, and never will be divided. The apostle Peter only points out the main content of our faith and of our confession.

You argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).

The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This means that it did not come from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. But that is okay for you, because you can pretend that everything between AD 33 and the 4th century was exactly the same as you believe today.

I believe in facts and not in your fantasy. If you you click on the blue text above, you will find lots of other proofs from the early Christians (before the 4th century). They all say that Christians must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

So, you don't actually have any proof.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The purpose of baptism is to unite a person to Christ. Through Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, we come to know the Father.

So, I don't find any disagreement. When the apostle Peter baptized someone in the name of Jesus Christ, he baptized him or her in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Trinity is indivisible: the Son has never been divided from the Father, nor the Holy Spirit from the Father or the Son, and never will be divided. The apostle Peter only points out the main content of our faith and of our confession.

You argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).

The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).


So, you don't actually have any proof.

There is no proof that the Trinitarian formula was in use during the time of the apostles or the time of Christ. This is explained in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) (emphasis in bold is mine).

http://www.internationalstandardbibl...ist-view).html

The Formula of Baptism.
The Formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Mt 28:19: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr: and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. He says that Christians "receive the washing with water in the name of God, the Ruler and Father of the universe, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" (1 Apol., 61). In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost "in the name of Jesus" (Ac 2:38); and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Ac 10:48). Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" (1Co 1:13). The Samaritans were baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Ac 8:16); and the same formula (a common one in acts of devotion) was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. In some instances it is recorded that before baptism the converts were asked to make some confession of their faith, which took the form of declaring that Jesus was the Lord or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It may be inferred from a phrase in 1Pe 3:21 that a formal interrogation was made, and that the answer was an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ was Lord. Scholars have exercised a great deal of ingenuity in trying to explain how, with what appear to be the very words of Jesus given in the Gospel of Mt, another and much shorter formula seems to have been used throughout the apostolic church. Some have imagined that the shorter formula was that used in baptizing disciples during the lifetime of our Lord (Joh 4:1-2), and that the apostles having become accustomed to it continued to use it during their lives. Others declare that the phrases "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "of the Lord Jesus" are not meant to give the formula of baptism, but simply to denote that the rite was Christian. Others think that the full formula was always used and that the narratives in the Book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place--an idea rather difficult to believe in the absence of any single reference to the longer formula. Others, again, insist that baptism in the name of one of the persons of the Trinity implies baptism in the name of the Three. While others declare that Matthew does not give the very words of Jesus but puts in His mouth what was the common formula used at the date and in the district where the First Gospel was written. Whatever explanation be given it is plain that the longer formula became universal or almost universal in the sub-apostolic church. Justin Martyr has been already. quoted. Tertullian, nearly half a century later, declares expressly that the "law of baptism has been imposed and the formula prescribed" in Mt 28:19 (De Bapt., 13); and he adds in his Adversus Praxean (c. 26): "And it is not once only, but thrice, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names." The evidence to show that the formula given by Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived. The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians "corrupted" baptism by using the name of Christ only in the formula; while injunctions to use the longer formula and punishments, including deposition, threatened to those who presumed to employ the shorter which meet us in collections of ecclesiastical canons (Apos. Canons, 43, 50), prove that the practice of using the shorter formula existed in the 5th and 6th centuries, at all events in the East.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Second Proof: the Trinitarian Baptism formula added to the book of Matthew

You may be surprised, but it doesn't matter if the Baptism formula was added or not to the book of Matthew. The absence of the text doesn't disprove the Christian faith in the Holy Trinity.

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura. For the Orthodox, the Bible is the book of the Church, written by and for those who believe in God and constitute His people.

The Church is based on Christ. She is NOT based on the text of Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no agreement regarding which "books" of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.

You consider the New Testament to be a part of the Scriptures only because the Church decided to do so. Nowhere in the New Testament the Apostles asked to include their writings into the canon of the Scriptures. The Church did that. And now you are denying one of the teachings of the Church. Why do you trust the Bible then? Again, you are not consistent.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) said in Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger

That's a misquote. Those Roman Catholics who really read the book say "that the Cardinal was referring to the Apostles Creed. Developing a Creed is not an invention, it's a declaration of a believe that already has existed but has been defined and articulated for edification."

The actual quote is this:

The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles' Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."— Joseph Ratzinger

Evangelical, you just repeated someone's lie and manipulation and showed no proof again.

The Didache (around 70 AD) is the oldest extra-biblical source for information about baptism. If you want to know how the Christians of the 1st century practiced baptism, check out with the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Your faith about baptism is similar to that of Jehovah Witness, another organization that preaches a different Christ. What you are doing is just protecting their heresy. This is another thing to ponder on.

God bless.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can something be more divisive than a division? There is no such thing as "more divisive".

That is your recast of what Ohio said (or more correctly, didn't say).

Your position is that the fact of a name is a division of ultimate separation. If that is the case, then there is no name that can cure it. Paul declared that saying you are "of Christ" could not even cure a division. But he did not say that saying you are of Christ was a division, only that being divided and declaring yourself to be of Christ did nothing to improve your situation.

Yet, after centuries, a couple of people come along and declare that there is a name that can cure division. It can allow people to call all other Christians the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters and still stand as cured before God. And that name is the name of the city in which you live. Not even "Christ" could to that. But "Ephesus," Anaheim," or "Taipei" can.

Get real. This is a shell game for the simple minded. And it is suspect that the minds that push it now are possibly too simple to see the error of their own teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

You may be surprised, but it doesn't matter if the Baptism formula was added or not to the book of Matthew. The absence of the text doesn't disprove the Christian faith in the Holy Trinity.

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura. For the Orthodox, the Bible is the book of the Church, written by and for those who believe in God and constitute His people.

That may be so, however it shows that your previous claim is not correct where you said:

Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The Trinitarian formula did not become universally adopted until years after Christ. The early church all baptized in the name of Jesus and did not invoke a Trinitarian dogma. In fact as I am not against the Trinity I am not saying the formula is wrong. I am saying there were at least two methods of baptism in the early church and you cannot claim one over the other, given the evidence - the Trinitarian one was not the first.

This is not a problem for my view because we do not claim history as our ground. This is a problem for your view because it means your faith is not based upon the Church in Jerusalem of 33 AD where baptism "in the name of Christ" was the norm. The history and apostleship you lay claim to is not from AD 33 but from later.

The Hasting's bible dictionary makes this clear:

http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb.html

It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’: Acts 2:38 ; Acts 8:16 ; Acts 10:48 ; Acts 19:5 ; cf, 1 Corinthians 1:13 ; 1 Corinthians 1:15 ), without reference to the Father or the Spirit.

it is better to infer the authority of Christ for the practice from the prompt and universal adoption of it by the Apostles and the infant Church, to which the opening chapters of Acts bear witness; and from the significance attached to the rite in the Epistles, and especially in those of St. Paul.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

You consider the New Testament to be a part of the Scriptures only because the Church decided to do so. Nowhere in the New Testament the Apostles asked to include their writings into the canon of the Scriptures. The Church did that. And now you are denying one of the teachings of the Church. Why do you trust the Bible then? Again, you are not consistent.

Who do you say is "the Church"? The history shows that your church was lazy and slow to develop a canon. Your church did not even think it necessary to strictly define the canon. It is the latin church we should thank for the canon we have today more than the Eastern churches.

http://www.ntcanon.org/closing-east.shtml

The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.

Your church had uncertainty for many years about what should go into the canon:

As an example of the uncertainty in the east, the Trullan Synod of 691-692 CE endorsed these lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (~385 CE), the Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE ?) , the Third Synod of Carthage (~397 CE), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE). And yet these lists do not agree. The Synod of Hippo Regius (393 CE) and the Synod of Carthage (419 CE) also addressed the canon and are discussed here.

There are even differences between the canons of the different churches:

Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences; see [Metzger] pp. 218-228 for details. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.

There have been many canons. So which "the canon" are you referring to?:

Eastern Orthodox canon?
The Roman Catholic canon from 1546?
The Roman Catholic canon from before 1546?
The Lutheran Canon?
Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563?
Origen of Alexandria's canon?
The Syrian canon?
The Coptic canon?
etc.

Which one of these do you think gave me the canon in my bible, which is the Recovery Version by Living Stream Ministries?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That's a misquote. Those Roman Catholics who really read the book say "that the Cardinal was referring to the Apostles Creed. Developing a Creed is not an invention, it's a declaration of a believe that already has existed but has been defined and articulated for edification."

Evangelical, you just repeated someone's lie and manipulation and showed no proof again.

This quotation was to emphasize that the Apostles Creed came from Rome, not the Church in Jerusalem of AD33. The claim is that Jesus taught it in Matthew 28:19 but this is not evident in the book of Acts, which shows that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ. The writings of the early church father Eusebius confirms that baptism in the three-name formula was not a universal practice at the time. Your assumption that the practice had always existed is wrong, as I have shown in the other quotations.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The Didache (around 70 AD) is the oldest extra-biblical source for information about baptism. If you want to know how the Christians of the 1st century practiced baptism, check out with the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

There are some interesting things you should know about the Didache (taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache).

The New Testament is rich in metaphors for baptism but offers few details about the practice itself, not even whether the candidates professed their faith in a formula.[36] The Didache is the oldest extra-biblical source for information about baptism, but it, too lacks these details
The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, US. 2005. ISBN 0195138864 p. 36–38

So the Didache is no better than the New Testament, and in fact in a number of ways the Didache is less reliable than the New Testament. That is, just because you have an extra-biblical writing does not make void the New Testament which clearly shows baptism was done in the name of Jesus as early as AD33.

The date of 70 AD you gave could be wrong - the Didache was originally dated to the late 2nd century, not 70AD. In fact, the precise date unknown, it could be as late as 150AD. "Dating the document is thus made difficult both by the lack of hard evidence and its composite character".

-It is an anonyomous work - it was probably not written by any early church father. It is probably not written by anyone so important.
-Lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873, a latin version in 1900.
-The Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150, although a date closer to the end of the first century seems more probable to many.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Your faith about baptism is similar to that of Jehovah Witness, another organization that preaches a different Christ. What you are doing is just protecting their heresy. This is another thing to ponder on.

Do you believe that to baptize in the name of Christ is a heresy? That is the only similarity between us and the JW.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is your recast of what Ohio said (or more correctly, didn't say).

Your position is that the fact of a name is a division of ultimate separation. If that is the case, then there is no name that can cure it. Paul declared that saying you are "of Christ" could not even cure a division. But he did not say that saying you are of Christ was a division, only that being divided and declaring yourself to be of Christ did nothing to improve your situation.

Yet, after centuries, a couple of people come along and declare that there is a name that can cure division. It can allow people to call all other Christians the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters and still stand as cured before God. And that name is the name of the city in which you live. Not even "Christ" could to that. But "Ephesus," Anaheim," or "Taipei" can.

Get real. This is a shell game for the simple minded. And it is suspect that the minds that push it now are possibly too simple to see the error of their own teachings.

From Paul's writings we know a few things. Paul did not like them saying that they follow him, Apollos, or Christ. Paul did not say there was anything wrong with them referring to themselves by their locality. There is nothing divisive about saying "I am from Corinth" if you visit the church in Ephesus. In fact, Paul refers to them by their locality, never by anything else. The implication is that Paul wanted them to refer to themselves by their locality and nothing else. That is how Paul referred to them. Even today when we say "the Corinthians", or "the Ephesians" we are referring to the church by its locality, and nothing else.

So why do Christians today refer to the early Christians by their locality (Corinthians, Ephesians etc) but think they must have a prefix today?
All sects and sub-divisions today add a prefix to their locality name. Whether it is nationality of origin or language (e.g. Roman, Greek, Russian), to whether it is a founder's name (e.g. Luther), or whether it is a particular doctrine (e.g. Presbyterianism). The Roman Catholics for example, could simply refer to themselves as "the Christians in London". They add the pre-fix Roman, because they are not encompassing all the Christians in London, but a sect or sub-division of the locality which holds to the doctrines of Rome.

Most Christian's problem is that that they think the church must have a prefix. That is why they refer to us as the Witness Lee church or the Lord's Recovery church. They cannot refer to us as just the church in the locality because the moment they do so is the moment they admit that they are wrong and in a sect, not a church. In contrast, we can say that every believer in the city is just the church in the locality - only the genuine church can say that. Those who cannot say that are a sect, or sub-division of the genuine church.

The Orthodox church, on the other hand, believes their church to be the only true church in the city. They cannot call our church a church, or even say we have the same faith or the same Lord. If we baptize in the name of Christ then we are heretics. That is divisive. If we do not share the same history as them, or accept the Three-name baptismal formula, we are automatically excluded. In contrast, we accept all believers who profess faith in Christ. So I cannot see how anyone can claim that we are "more divisive". More divisive than a division? I think not.

As far as I can tell, there are two reasons why a church will not accept us as just the church in the city. One reason, is the view of the historical traditional churches like Roman Catholic , Orthodox etc. They believe themselves to be the only true church in the city, based upon their rich history and traditions. Those who do not accept these traditions cannot be considered to belong to them. They would never accept a sect like the Lutherans, Baptist etc to be a church, because to do so would be to deny their very existence, tradition and history. It would be for them to admit that they are a sect themselves.

The second reason, is the view of the protestant sects - the Lutherans, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostals etc. They do not accept us as just the church in the city because they believe that no one can claim to be the only true church in the city. They say this because they are sects, and for any one of them to lay claim to the true church in the city would mean they are irrelevant. Their very reason for existence is because they are against a structure like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox, or Anglican, or anyone who claims to be "the one". In fact, the protestant sects have ulterior motives and a reason for not seeking unity. It is better for them to maintain the status quo so that they can preserve their own existence in a kind of homeostasis. If they were genuinely for unity, the so many protestant sects would have joined forces long ago - even the ecumenical movement has declined, because they were not really serious about unity. To ask two sects to join together would be like McDonald's joining Burger King. Even though they both sell burgers, and have much in common, they would never join because the brand, the name, is a powerful thing. Even though Lutherans are so much like Anglicans, they would never join because their brands, their names, are too powerful.

But what if McDonald's and Burger King changed their names to the same thing? Would it create unity? Yes of course it would. You may dismiss names as irrelevant or not important, even trivial. However as I have shown, names can be a powerful thing, they can divide and can also unite. A claim that "names cannot unite" is grounded in logical fallacy and blatant ignorance of the world around us. Even the wife will drop her surname and take the name of her husband because of the unifying power of names.

The solution as presented by Lee/Nee is simple - if every church dropped the prefixes, dropped the "brand names" and referred to themselves as only the church in the city, then we would be back to how it was in the New Testament times. Then it would be possible for a Baptist and a Roman Catholic (for example) to fellowship in the same church without dividing from each other by prefix. I understand there will be wide diversity, but that is how it was in the early church. It took the early church many years to agree on matters such as the canon or the creeds, it did not happen overnight. Those who are called "heretics" today such as those who reject the Trinity, were once accepted, before they were forced to accept the dogma of the Trinitarians or else be killed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From Paul's writings we know a few things. Paul did not like them saying that they follow him, Apollos, or Christ.

This is a way to understand the passage. But it is not "the way" to understand it. The problem wasn't what teacher(s) they mainly listened to. It was that they were dividing over which teachers to listen to. So the claim of being "of" anyone, including Christ, was not a positive comment about liking a particular teacher. It was a declaration of why they were dividing from others who followed other teachers.

In this context, being "or Christ" was not a common declaration that should apply to all believers, but was a claim that their reason for dividing was better than anyone else's. Simply declaring themselves to be "of Corinth" would not have cleared-up the mess. While their rhetoric would have changed, the underlying division would remain.

The LRC does not actually drop all "concepts" to be simply one with others. Instead, they wrap their preferences in a different kind of name and declare that it cures their division.

And since the others are not nearly as divided as you seem to think, it would appear that the LRC is more divided from the rest of Christianity than most of that myriad of groups with different names are from each other. It is a sad commentary that the group that declares itself to be, by definition, one with all believers is actually more divided from all of them than almost any of them are from each other.

And despite all the apparent disagreement here, we have less reason to reject you than you do to reject everyone else. And you probably agree with me and are proud of it. I stand as one with all believers without the need for them to come to my assembly and listen to the ministry of the dead man I follow. And I am not opposed to meeting with any of them. I choose where I meet as a preference, not as stand against the others. You are the one that intentionally refuses to meet with others unless they come to you.

Layering a tale about Mrs. Smith into the mix does not make your group superior. If that metaphor actually was relevant, then your group is claiming the name of a city, not of its husband, Christ.

Go pray-read that for a while and see what kind of spin you can put on it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a way to understand the passage. But it is not "the way" to understand it. The problem wasn't what teacher(s) they mainly listened to. It was that they were dividing over which teachers to listen to. So the claim of being "of" anyone, including Christ, was not a positive comment about liking a particular teacher. It was a declaration of why they were dividing from others who followed other teachers.

In this context, being "or Christ" was not a common declaration that should apply to all believers, but was a claim that their reason for dividing was better than anyone else's. Simply declaring themselves to be "of Corinth" would not have cleared-up the mess. While their rhetoric would have changed, the underlying division would remain.

The LRC does not actually drop all "concepts" to be simply one with others. Instead, they wrap their preferences in a different kind of name and declare that it cures their division.

Based upon your understanding, try explaining how the Lutheran church, is not a division over "which teacher to listen to"? Their very existence and name is because of Luther's teaching. They could have joined with the Anglican church long ago - they are very similar. Their name and teacher Luther is still a reason for them to maintain their division today. There is no way that they are all Lutheran today "just because they prefer to be Lutheran". Their preference comes from opposition.

Originally Posted by OBW

And since the others are not nearly as divided as you seem to think, it would appear that the LRC is more divided from the rest of Christianity than most of that myriad of groups with different names are from each other. It is a sad commentary that the group that declares itself to be, by definition, one with all believers is actually more divided from all of them than almost any of them are from each other.

If they are not so divided, then why do they still have different names and different identities? Why the largest of them still has closed communion? Your sensationalist claim that we are "more divided" is not grounded in fact. The first fact about division is that the largest church in Christianity - the Roman Catholic, of 1.2 billion, consider themselves to be the only church in the city, and no ecumenical movement or niceties between them and the protestant sects has ever changed that or will change that. That's divisive. They still practice closed communion, that has not changed.

The second fact is that the second largest group of Protestantism, numbering 800 million, is actually made up of hundreds of divisions itself.
Taken to the extreme, two or three here is one church, and another two and three there is another church. Suddenly there are 10,000 churches in the one city. It becomes not only more divisive than the Catholic, but also more ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OBW

And despite all the apparent disagreement here, we have less reason to reject you than you do to reject everyone else. And you probably agree with me and are proud of it. I stand as one with all believers without the need for them to come to my assembly and listen to the ministry of the dead man I follow. And I am not opposed to meeting with any of them. I choose where I meet as a preference, not as stand against the others. You are the one that intentionally refuses to meet with others unless they come to you.

Layering a tale about Mrs. Smith into the mix does not make your group superior. If that metaphor actually was relevant, then your group is claiming the name of a city, not of its husband, Christ.

Go pray-read that for a while and see what kind of spin you can put on it.

You choose where you meet based upon preference, pretending to be one with all the believers. I meet with the church in my locality despite my preference, and I am actually one with them because there is such diversity in culture, nationality, race, education, and yes doctrinal opinion and backgrounds. When you say you as an individual meet based upon preference and not as a stand against the others, it sounds good for you as an individual. If everyone did that, then your church is grounded on preference, and not the solid grounding such as Christ, locality, or even the Bible or apostolic traditions and history that Protestant or Orthodox lay claim to.

In the case of denominations, their existence is not because of personal preference, but some sort of opposition. If I asked a church, like the Lutheran church, would they say "I am not opposed to meeting with any of them, we call ourselves "the Lutheran church" based upon our preference, not because of our opposition".?

Of course they would not say that. It has never been a question of preference. The Lutheran church did not start and continue today just because they prefer to be Lutherans.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But what if McDonald's and Burger King changed their names to the same thing?

Good point. And, come to think of it, this would be like calling the Son the Father. How silly would that be!

It took the early church many years to agree on matters such as the canon or the creeds, it did not happen overnight. Those who are called "heretics" today such as those who reject the Trinity, were once accepted, before they were forced to accept the dogma of the Trinitarians or else be killed.

"The early church"? Wow, you're admitting any Christians outside of the Local Church of Witness Lee were the church? I'm very happy that this forum has had at least one good influence on you my brother! Yes there was a very vigorous debate regarding the nature of Christ and of the Trinity. But debate and controversy within the Christian church has, for the most part, been a very healthy thing. Without these debates we wouldn't have the solid rock of many of the core doctrines we have today. The Reformation would never have taken place.

And a lack of healthy debate is what will eventually kill the Local Church of Witness Lee. Lee created an atmosphere where healthy debate was considered anathema, even rebellion. And what has this atmosphere created? A bunch of empty suits that are only capable of repeating the messages of a guy who has been 6 feet under for 20 years. I'm afraid the religion of the Local Church movement is in critical condition. The signs of rigor mortis are already taking effect. May God have mercy.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you fail to understand is that the fact that there was one church per city, is because it was organized that way. It did not just happen, by chance to be one church per city, that is how it was planned and arranged.
If it were otherwise, we would find in the Bible, like you said, multiple organizations and churches within the one city.

But we do see that, by the mention of house churches. At least the mention of house churches puts enough doubt on your assertion of the surety of city churches being the only valid organizational unit as to make your insistence on it unreasonable. Also Acts 9:31 mentions "the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria....". Was this a local church or the universal church? Lee imposed tortured logic on this text to try to equate this mention to the "universal" church. But that argument is very weak.

The bottom line is your insistence on only city churches without names is a model the Bible does not prescribe nor consistently support. The mention of house churches and a church across regions places serious doubt on your beliefs. That being the case, you end up being the one who has a divisive attitude--not because you are generally for oneness, but because you are stridently insisting on an expression of oneness that is unreasonable given what the Bible actually presents.

What you claim to believe makes "perfect sense" to you, but that is likely because you are irrationally biased in its favor. Having been in the LCM, having been intimidated by their methods of suggesting that agreeing with them without question is crucial to pleasing God, I cannot place trust in your objectivity on the matter. Until you show that you are able to think independently of LCM indoctrination I'll continue to feel that way.

[Cal]

Again we do not see clearly in the Bible that all churches in the NT were organized at the local level. All we see is that the Bible mentions the church in the city. But the Bible never prescribes, nor does it clearly describe organization at the local level.

The Bible never cites a example of a whole city church meeting together with one group of leaders who are clearly in charge over that one organizational unit. We simply do not see that. The Bible mentions instances of city churches, instances of house churches, and at least one mention of a church that spans several regions (Act 9:31). It also mentions "elders in the city." But the Bible never puts it all together and says those elders in the city all work together to lead one church in a city. And it never says that is the way it always is done or ever should be done.

The Bible just doesn't say that. And to try to insist it does explains why the LCM remains a tiny fringe group, because tiny fringe groups tend to latch onto unlikely ideas that most others can see through.

Note, however, that the way they hold to this idea is to condemn everyone else for not holding to it. This is another evidence of fringe groups. They cannot just hold to their beliefs in peace, with the quite reasonable admittance that their conclusions might be wrong. No, they MUST be right, because, well, they must be.

That's the nature of these groups. Is it possible they are right? Of course. But it's very unlikely. It's also possible the World Health Organization manufactured the HIV virus and the US government planned 9/11. Many things are possible. Only a small subset are likely.

Wise people tend toward what is likely given all the information they have. Fools roll the dice on the unlikeliest of scenarios. It's the difference between genuine critical thinking and thinking in service of true believerism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, now the Muslims do that, and so I think we need as many Christian charities as possible.

I heard this kind of refrain repeatedly from within LSM-affiliated churches: "Others do it, so why can't we?" And this from the group that denounced anything not done according to Biblical precedent. Suddenly, when they found themselves exposed so doing, they cited convention and necessity. Suddenly a scriptural mandate, or even a template, wasn't relevant.

If you were to press the point they'd usually fall back on the "church versus work" dodge. Like they go into a building, put on their "church" hats, praise the Lord that they're not like those other degraded Christians who've taken names. Then, sitting in the same chairs, they put on the "work" hats and discuss what registered, named, non-profit organizations they're using to promote the ministry of the age. Because, you know, everyone has to register an organizational name with the government. Why? Well, it's just what everyone does. Everyone does it. What's the big deal?

[Evangelical]

Even Paul said:

1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-

You might condemn Paul as well for not doing other things he wasn't called to do, like baptise, build homeless shelters etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"The early church"? Wow, you're admitting any Christians outside of the Local Church of Witness Lee were the church? I'm very happy that this forum has had at least one good influence on you my brother!

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again we do not see clearly in the Bible that all churches in the NT were organized at the local level. All we see is that the Bible mentions the church in the city. But the Bible never prescribes, nor does it clearly describe organization at the local level.

Your point about fringe groups is understood. But normally these fringe groups arise from a lack of local organisation. That is why we do not see Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, or Catholics, holding "Holy Ghost Pajama Parties". That is why we do not see even the local churches doing these silly things because we maintain the local organisation. Anyway, Jesus was a revolutionary, his little band of 12 disciples was a fringe group once.

The "anything goes" model which is around today, of any "two or three" setting up their own "church" because it suits them, is actually a fringe view. It has been rejected by historians and theologians. Even Martin Luther or Calvin and other great Reformers never thought to implement the "anything goes" model. They rejected many things from Catholicism but they did not throw away the local organisation.

It has been rejected by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and possibly the Lutheran as well. They all recognise that the early church was structured and arranged in an ordered way. This means your view is a fringe view.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your point about fringe groups is understood. But normally these fringe groups arise from a lack of local organisation. That is why we do not see Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, or Catholics, holding "Holy Ghost Pajama Parties". That is why we do not see even the local churches doing these silly things because we maintain the local organisation. Anyway, Jesus was a revolutionary, his little band of 12 disciples was a fringe group once.

The "anything goes" model which is around today, of any "two or three" setting up their own "church" because it suits them, is actually a fringe view. It has been rejected by historians and theologians. Even Martin Luther or Calvin and other great Reformers never thought to implement the "anything goes" model. They rejected many things from Catholicism but they did not throw away the local organisation.

It has been rejected by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and possibly the Lutheran as well. They all recognise that the early church was structured and arranged in an ordered way. This means your view is a fringe view.

"Anything goes" is a red herring and a straw man. Nobody advocates that. It is just your disparaging description to bolster your very weak argument. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme.

Everyone realizes there must be parameters. What you don't realize is that nobody has been appointed referee of what those parameters are. Neither the LCM nor especially you have been appointed oneness police--which is good because both of you are imminently unqualified.

Also your characterization of me is a red herring. I never said the early churches weren't organized. I just said the Bible does not clearly establish, and gives sufficient reason to doubt, the LCM's version of how they were organized. That hardly makes me fringe.

And I don't see any wrong with "Holy Ghost Pajama Parties," as long as they are single-gender. They certainly have the potential for upside that your disparaging carrying-ons and the LCM's chest-thumping lack.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

As far as I know, the LCM has never recognized any church which met "as the church in the city" which was not subservient to Lee and LSM. They always find some technicality by which to dismiss such a group and then proceed to set up their own congregation in that city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

On this we agree. But that's only one shoe.

The other shoe is that Nee/Lee believed that their group had some kind of validity and centrality that other groups did not. This all was established, they believed and as you seem to, merely by calling themselves "the church in...", which somehow magically granted them a recognition from God that transcended all other groups--even to the point of establishing their elders as authorities over all Christians in the city, and obligated all other Christian churches to close their doors, resign their elders, join the LCM, submit to its leaders and follow Lee's ministry exclusively!

Wow! That's a lot of power established simply by calling oneself "the church in...". Pretty impressive!

This, clearly, is unreasonable nonsense. But it is the essential LCM attitude.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Anything goes" is a red herring and a straw man. Nobody advocates that. It is just your disparaging description to bolster your very weak argument. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme.

Everyone realizes there must be parameters. What you don't realize is that nobody has been appointed referee of what those parameters are. Neither the LCM nor especially you have been appointed oneness police--which is good because both of you are imminently unqualified.

Also your characterization of me is a red herring. I never said the early churches weren't organized. I just said the Bible does not clearly establish, and gives sufficient reason to doubt, the LCM's version of how they were organized. That hardly makes me fringe.

And I don't see any wrong with "Holy Ghost Pajama Parties," as long as they are single-gender. They certainly have the potential for upside that your disparaging carrying-ons and the LCM's chest-thumping lack.

At the very least, in the bible the plurality of elders (James 5:14) is a clear teaching. So we know that each church should have more than one leader. This rules out all one-pastor and one-priest churches which constitute the majority of churches today, whether it is the typical little house on the prairie baptist church or the giant cathedrals in Europe. This is but one point of difference between the bible's clear teaching and practice today. There are many more.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way.

Thanks leastofthese! You know, this describes quite a number of orthodox, evangelical churches throughout the world. It's a miracle! Christians of all sorts of nationalities, colors, cultures, social statuses "are meeting together as Spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify out Lord and Savior"...ALL WITHOUT EVER HEARING ABOUT WATCHMAN NEE OR WITNESS LEE OR LIVING STREAM MINISTRY!! Praise God. I guess with God all things ARE possible!
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

Let me put it this way. What if you were the apostle Paul and did that, and had no connection to the Church in Jerusalem where Peter, James and John were? Does that represent oneness or not? What if Paul then called his church the "Pauline Church" - is that oneness? People who did not like Peter and James's teaches could attend the Pauline Church if they wanted to, as it suited their preference.

What if you lived in the time of the apostle Paul, and you started a church according to his pattern in a city where a church was not yet. And you had no affiliation with the churches he established nearby (despite perhaps some of your members being aware of him), and did not receive his letters, reading only the 4 gospels. Does that represent oneness or not?

The bible describes interaction between the local churches - by way of Paul's letters and ministry, and also by way of practical help.

[TLFisher]

"Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 13:1-3

Couldn't this happen today where brothers and sisters are led into and out of various assemblies?
From my time in the local churches, when brothers and sisters are led out of the local churches it gets a bit personal and a bit heated due to the concept the local churches is the end and end-all until the Lord's return.
The concept the Lord is doing things outside the so-called recovery is unfathomable.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

"Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 13:1-3

Couldn't this happen today where brothers and sisters are led into and out of various assemblies?
From my time in the local churches, when brothers and sisters are led out of the local churches it gets a bit personal and a bit heated due to the concept the local churches is the end and end-all until the Lord's return.
The concept the Lord is doing things outside the so-called recovery is unfathomable.

In the book of Acts there is no record of the Holy Spirit leading someone out of one assembly and into another, within the one city. The leading was always from locality to locality, from region to region.

Based upon Acts 13:1-3, "the church at Antioch" there was just one church. Barnabas and Saul were led out of Antioch to Seleucia and Cyprus (verse 4). That is nothing like a person claiming to be led out of the Baptist church and into a Lutheran church, for example. Even though at that time they meet from house to house, in different households - there is no record of the Spirit leading someone out of one household and into another household. That is because they were all in the one and same church within the city.

The concept of God leading someone out of the assembly at "52nd street", Antioch, into the assembly at "24th Street" Antioch is not the same thing. People leaving the local church to go to a different assembly in the same city is going between sects, not churches.

The Bible only records the Spirit leading them out of cities or regions/countries and into new places. Here are others:

Acts 16:9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."

Acts 16:6 he Spirit of Holiness forbade them to speak the word of God in Asia.

God told Paul to go into the city Acts 9:6, not a particular sect or assembly:

“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Acts 21:4 "By the power of the Spirit they told Paul not to go to Jerusalem."

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we baptize in the name of Christ then we are heretics. That is divisive. If we do not share the same history as them, or accept the Three-name baptismal formula, we are automatically excluded. In contrast, we accept all believers who profess faith in Christ. So I cannot see how anyone can claim that we are "more divisive". More divisive than a division? I think not.

Evangelical, I believe, it is both, divisive and heretical: to preach another Christ and to baptize only in the name of Christ, without the Holy Trinity in mind. If you believe that God the Son is God the Father then your faith has nothing to do with the faith of the early Church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who do you say is "the Church"? The history shows that your church was lazy and slow to develop a canon. Your church did not even think it necessary to strictly define the canon. It is the latin church we should thank for the canon we have today more than the Eastern churches.

Why do you say "churches"? The church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Antioch, etc. - they were one, unique, universal and undivided Church. It was the Body of Christ, not several different bodies.

The Church had to use the word "orthodox" so that distinguish herself from heretical groups in the same location which also claimed to be the Church. For example, imagine several churches claim to be the Church in Alexandria. One of them is the LRC. Where should I go? I need to make sure that I don't go to the place where they teach that God the Father is God the Son because it's not in the Creed.

The Bible is the voice of the Holy Spirit. But this voice was heard through human intermediates and by human means. Therefore, the Bible is a book with its own history. It is important to remember that "the Bible came out of the Church; the Church did not come out of the Bible."

The canon of the New Testament was developed over the early centuries of the Church. Its first known listing in its final form is the Paschal Letter of St. Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367. As you can see, St Athanasius was not from the latin church. (Anyway, it was one Church that time).

The early Church did not have one canon of the Bible due to historical reasons. The local churches had only parts of the New Testament. One church could have certain books and didn't have others. For example, one local church had the Gospel of Matthew and didn't have the Gospel of Mark. So, it was the life of the Church and it took a few centuries to compile one canon of the Bible, approved by all local churches. Probably, it could be done earlier if the Church hadn't suffered under persecution for over 300 years.

Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles...

It was the Church that rejected controversial books. So, it is because of the Church that your canon of the Bible doesn’t include the "Teaching of Peter", the "Gospel of Thomas" or the "Revelation of Peter" and other false and heretical gospels.

God bless.

PS Please check out Dr. Clark Carlton's article "The Structure and Worship of the Early Church" if you want to know what the early Church was like.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let me put it this way. What if you were the apostle Paul and did that, and had no connection to the Church in Jerusalem where Peter, James and John were? Does that represent oneness or not? What if Paul then called his church the "Pauline Church" - is that oneness? People who did not like Peter and James's teaches could attend the Pauline Church if they wanted to, as it suited their preference.

What if you lived in the time of the apostle Paul, and you started a church according to his pattern in a city where a church was not yet. And you had no affiliation with the churches he established nearby (despite perhaps some of your members being aware of him), and did not receive his letters, reading only the 4 gospels. Does that represent oneness or not?

The bible describes interaction between the local churches - by way of Paul's letters and ministry, and also by way of practical help.

This is a very interesting response. I make no mention of 'not liking' a particular teacher nor wanting to name this church after any particular person (although - based on this thread - this is your default mindset of modern Christianity). I do not live in the time of Paul, I have received Paul's letters. But it almost seems like you are equating Paul to Lee? The implications of your statements (especially when carried to their logical conclusion) are serious and concerning for those who don't know Witness Lee. But "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”Acts 4:12

Evangelical - I wonder where you live in the US and what your interactions look like with other Christian believers in your city or around the world. As I read your statements, such as "Yes, the local churches are certainly more open and welcoming to all believers in the city than many denominations are. Yet some insist that we are the divisive ones, when our open communion policy shows otherwise." I feel for you and pray that the Lord may reveal Himself to you.

I have been to these churches, shared a meal, slept in homes, prayed with, played with, worshipped with.... and I want to very humbly tell you that your mindset and reality do not match. It is true - in my honest reflection - that the most divisive church that I've been a part of or attended was that of the LSM denomination. In evangelical, protestant churches around the world, I've found this to be the true. No perfection, still fallen men grasping by the grace of God.

May our Lord and Savior soften our hearts, pour His Spirit fresh upon us, deliver us from evil, and point us to His Truth.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based upon your understanding, try explaining how the Lutheran church, is not a division over "which teacher to listen to"? Their very existence and name is because of Luther's teaching. They could have joined with the Anglican church long ago - they are very similar. Their name and teacher Luther is still a reason for them to maintain their division today. There is no way that they are all Lutheran today "just because they prefer to be Lutheran". Their preference comes from opposition.

This is an overlay onto a description that is not warranted. There is nothing inherently divisive about identifying the separate instances of anything. Me having a name is not about denying the humanness of others who have different names. Yes, in business, the grocery chains Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's are in competition. But in life, people are not in competition merely because they have names other than like "human male, age 43, that live at [address]." Some are in competition. But it is because of their choice, not because of their name.

Universities are mostly separate because they are actually separate. They surely compete for top-notch students. But after that, they tend to be parts of educational organizations that ensure that they all are up to snuff on their academic rigor so that the graduates they generate are worthy of being hired in the marketplace. They don't necessarily agree with each other on every minute thing that schools so. But the differences are not really important to the overall purpose.

Same for churches. There are many assemblies. They are primarily there to spread the message of Christ and to help their participants grow in their life as Christians.

But along the way, there have been many side doctrines that have come to be argued over. Some follow the practice of baptizing the newly converted "and their household," and therefore baptize the newborn among their families. Others follow a "believer's baptism" regimen. I would hold to the latter, but do not find those doing the former to be unchristian. Some follow varying levels of Calvinist teaching, primarily understanding that salvation is once for all and cannot be forfeited. Others follow varying degrees of Arminianism with the understanding that there is the possibility of losing salvation.

If we do not deny the salvation of those who have come to believe in the Arminian way, if you simply ignore that fact, how do you determine what will be taught within your assembly. And if you come to a new city and are faced with many assemblies due to the significant size of the city and the significant size of the single assembly that would be required to put them all under one roof, how would you feel if you happened to go to the nearest assembly and find that they teach an Arminian doctrine. What would you do? If its only designation was "the Church in [city] at 34th and Congress" (or even the Church in [city], Hall 137), would you argue that there is a reason to refrain from attending that particular assembly due to doctrinal difference? If so, then you have divided on no more basis than any of the rest have divided. They use the "correct" name, but you refuse them anyway. No less divided (if at all) than the rest of Christianity.

In short, the name is a hollow gesture to set yourself up as correct (according to your own claims) in the given environment. But if the environment changes, then you would have to deal with the fact that names do not alter whatever it is that is correct or incorrect about anything.

I accept that we do not all agree on how to do every non-essential thing. And some of them are different enough from my thinking that I would prefer to meet with people who are not busy arguing over their differences, but instead move forward because we are not busy worrying about differences.

I know that you would do exactly the same. And the so-called "Local Churches" have done exactly that with assemblies within their own sect. for example, several years ago a number of churches joined together to excommunicate Titus Chu for daring to publish his own materials, for teaching young people to refer to bible dictionaries and references prior to becoming steeped in Lee's teaching on the particular subjects, and for wanting clean sheets on his bed. When they were done, there were some churches that did not agree. And as a result, the so-called local churches excommunicated whole churches and went to court to get both the property used for their meetings, and the name that they used.

This makes it clear that the names "church in [city]" is not about oneness, but about identifying a group so that it can be different from others.

Yes, the LRC names are unique . . . just like all the rest.

BTW. your example of a woman and her husband's name is a cultural thing. That is not the way it works in all societies. And in some societies, the taking of the husband's name is optional. Actually, it is that way here in America. Taking the name may be the common thing. But it is not required. And it does not mean anything to do it or to not do it.

If Cary Grant had married Marilyn Monroe, what name was required for her? Norma Mortensen Leach? Norma Jean Leach? Norma Mortensen Grant? Norma Jean Grant? Marilyn Monroe Grant? Marilyn Grant? Marilyn Monroe Leach? Marilyn Leach? There are actually some others.

The point is that unless there is actual adultery involved, the name says nothing. Therefore a story about a woman's name is not meaningful. And it would appear that the story about the woman and her name is more meaningful to Lee in defining the naming basis for the LRC than anything in the Bible.

And that is because there really is nothing in the Bible to support it. So he needs a story to make it work.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, I believe, it is both, divisive and heretical: to preach another Christ and to baptize only in the name of Christ, without the Holy Trinity in mind. If you believe that God the Son is God the Father then your faith has nothing to do with the faith of the early Church.

It is not heretical to baptize in Christ's name if one is to be baptized into Christ. To baptize in Christ is to baptize in His name. This is what the early Christians did (see the book of Acts).

Rather it is heretical to baptize in the Holy Trinity without Christ in mind.

The name of the Father, name of the Son, name of the Spirit... what are these three names? Because Father, Son and Spirit are titles, not names. We know that the name of the Son is Jesus Christ. So when Jesus said "baptize them.. in the name of the Son", he meant "baptize in my name, Jesus Christ".

Because you baptize into titles and not names, how can you say your baptism is valid? How can you say you are baptized into Jesus when you do not use His name?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is an overlay onto a description that is not warranted. There is nothing inherently divisive about identifying the separate instances of anything. Me having a name is not about denying the humanness of others who have different names. Yes, in business, the grocery chains Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's are in competition. But in life, people are not in competition merely because they have names other than like "human male, age 43, that live at [address]." Some are in competition. But it is because of their choice, not because of their name.

Universities are mostly separate because they are actually separate. They surely compete for top-notch students. But after that, they tend to be parts of educational organizations that ensure that they all are up to snuff on their academic rigor so that the graduates they generate are worthy of being hired in the marketplace. They don't necessarily agree with each other on every minute thing that schools so. But the differences are not really important to the overall purpose.

Same for churches. There are many assemblies. They are primarily there to spread the message of Christ and to help their participants grow in their life as Christians.

But along the way, there have been many side doctrines that have come to be argued over. Some follow the practice of baptizing the newly converted "and their household," and therefore baptize the newborn among their families. Others follow a "believer's baptism" regimen. I would hold to the latter, but do not find those doing the former to be unchristian. Some follow varying levels of Calvinist teaching, primarily understanding that salvation is once for all and cannot be forfeited. Others follow varying degrees of Arminianism with the understanding that there is the possibility of losing salvation.

If we do not deny the salvation of those who have come to believe in the Arminian way, if you simply ignore that fact, how do you determine what will be taught within your assembly. And if you come to a new city and are faced with many assemblies due to the significant size of the city and the significant size of the single assembly that would be required to put them all under one roof, how would you feel if you happened to go to the nearest assembly and find that they teach an Arminian doctrine. What would you do? If its only designation was "the Church in [city] at 34th and Congress" (or even the Church in [city], Hall 137), would you argue that there is a reason to refrain from attending that particular assembly due to doctrinal difference? If so, then you have divided on no more basis than any of the rest have divided. They use the "correct" name, but you refuse them anyway. No less divided (if at all) than the rest of Christianity.

In short, the name is a hollow gesture to set yourself up as correct (according to your own claims) in the given environment. But if the environment changes, then you would have to deal with the fact that names do not alter whatever it is that is correct or incorrect about anything.

I accept that we do not all agree on how to do every non-essential thing. And some of them are different enough from my thinking that I would prefer to meet with people who are not busy arguing over their differences, but instead move forward because we are not busy worrying about differences.

I know that you would do exactly the same. And the so-called "Local Churches" have done exactly that with assemblies within their own sect. for example, several years ago a number of churches joined together to excommunicate Titus Chu for daring to publish his own materials, for teaching young people to refer to bible dictionaries and references prior to becoming steeped in Lee's teaching on the particular subjects, and for wanting clean sheets on his bed. When they were done, there were some churches that did not agree. And as a result, the so-called local churches excommunicated whole churches and went to court to get both the property used for their meetings, and the name that they used.

This makes it clear that the names "church in [city]" is not about oneness, but about identifying a group so that it can be different from others.

Yes, the LRC names are unique . . . just like all the rest.

BTW. your example of a woman and her husband's name is a cultural thing. That is not the way it works in all societies. And in some societies, the taking of the husband's name is optional. Actually, it is that way here in America. Taking the name may be the common thing. But it is not required. And it does not mean anything to do it or to not do it.

If Cary Grant had married Marilyn Monroe, what name was required for her? Norma Mortensen Leach? Norma Jean Leach? Norma Mortensen Grant? Norma Jean Grant? Marilyn Monroe Grant? Marilyn Grant? Marilyn Monroe Leach? Marilyn Leach? There are actually some others.

The point is that unless there is actual adultery involved, the name says nothing. Therefore a story about a woman's name is not meaningful. And it would appear that the story about the woman and her name is more meaningful to Lee in defining the naming basis for the LRC than anything in the Bible.

And that is because there really is nothing in the Bible to support it. So he needs a story to make it work.

You seem to be referring to like-minded Protestant churches, however the divisions are still there between Catholic and Protestant - there is no unity between them.

With the Protestants, your view that they are not actually separate brings me to wonder why they have not joined together? If there is such commonality and unity why not join together? It must be the name that is dividing them, because the name tells a person whether they believe in one kind of baptism over another, whether they are Calvinist or arminian etc. Take away the name, you take away the problem.

Those who have joined the LR from various denominational backgrounds have done this. They have dropped the names of difference and tolerate differences of opinion. Those who attend one denomination over another do so because of differences of opinion regarding minor doctrines.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With the Protestants, your view that they are not actually separate brings me to wonder why they have not joined together? If there is such commonality and unity why not join together?

I could say the same for you. You are so dogmatic about your name that you won't even participate in communion with others even though very many of them are more than glad to allow you to participate.

Yes, there are some that practice closed communion, but this is more because they are being very cautious about whether those who would participate are truly saved (no matter how they arrive at that conclusion). Since they don't know you, they take Paul's charge that some are sick because of taking the table when they shouldn't as a charge to them as overseers, not just a warning to the general population. Can't really fault them too much for being cautious on your behalf.

But still, most evangelical assemblies practice open communion. So they do not preclude you. You preclude yourself by insisting that they are improper and avoiding their table. And if you were by coincidence to attend such a place with relatives when they were observing communion, it is typical that LRC people will refrain because they deem it unworthy. Therefore the ones closed concerning communion in those cases is you, not them. You refuse to participate with others unless they come to you. As if you have the corner on what is a "proper table."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It must be the name that is dividing them, because the name tells a person whether they believe in one kind of baptism over another, whether they are Calvinist or arminian etc. Take away the name, you take away the problem.

So, are you suggesting that if the assembly I attend simply renames itself as "the Church in Dallas" then you will be willing to attend no matter what differences in teaching from your preferences there may be?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those who have joined the LR from various denominational backgrounds have done this. They have dropped the names of difference and tolerate differences of opinion. Those who attend one denomination over another do so because of differences of opinion regarding minor doctrines.

Ah. The truth comes out. It is not that they drop their names. It is that they abandon their assemblies and join with yours. It really doesn't matter about the name. It is about being in the group that follows Nee and Lee. And reveres them as the top ministers in their "age." And follows LRC teaching. And attends the (however many there now are) feasts each year. And has a standing order for LSM materials and only reads eManna and HWFMR.

You don't want the whole of the Dallas area churches to abandon their names. You want them to abandon their doctrines and take on yours. You want them to abandon care for the needy. To abandon modern praise and worship music. To abandon drums and electric guitars in the meetings. To have the Lord's table with a single loaf according to the first century recipe (all the way down to the bleached white flour). To join in the demeaning of all Christians who are not like "us."

In other words, to be the Christian equivalent of White Supremacists.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rather it is heretical to baptize in the Holy Trinity without Christ in mind.

What are you smoking?

The "Holy Trinity" includes Christ. How do you propose to baptize in the Holy Trinity an not have Christ in mind?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I could say the same for you. You are so dogmatic about your name that you won't even participate in communion with others even though very many of them are more than glad to allow you to participate.

Yes, there are some that practice closed communion, but this is more because they are being very cautious about whether those who would participate are truly saved (no matter how they arrive at that conclusion). Since they don't know you, they take Paul's charge that some are sick because of taking the table when they shouldn't as a charge to them as overseers, not just a warning to the general population. Can't really fault them too much for being cautious on your behalf.

The ones practicing closed communion live in superstition and fantasy land as they believe it is a mystery that the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ when there is no verification of that happening, ever. They will be careful not to spill a drop and only 3 or 4 years of theological training qualifies one to be able to handle it and drink the leftovers during or after the service. It is an impressive scheme to grant a person sufficient training so that they can handle what is nothing more than flour and grape juice from your local store.

Your version of Christianity divides over what teacher to listen to, and worse, what church does things the way that you like to suit your preference. So it is no longer the church in the locality which you attend, but a church, or a sect rather, of "OBW's preference". Whether you realize it or not, it is actually your preference and everyone else preference which is the true cause of the division. And to distinguish your preference from another person's preference, it is necessary to attach a prefix to the church name so that people can know which church suits their preference. Preferences and names is possibly the only reason why denominations remain divided today despite having much in common, open communion policy and "not being as separated as we think". If a church which suited ones preference closed, people would be upset. Imagine if all the Calvinist churches closed, and people had to attend a sect which believed that a person could lose their salvation.

If such were the case in New Testament times then we should see multiple churches in each city according to a person's taste and preference. The early Christians had many good reasons to separate according to preference but they did not. For example Peter preferred to associate with the Jews and live as a Jew, Paul separated from them completely and lived as a gentile. Yet we find no instance of the church being divided along Jew and gentile lines, arminian and Calvinist, etc. I suppose it is one thing we have in common with Catholic and Orthodox - we do not attend church because of our preference, but because like them, we believe it to be "the church" in "the city".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

What are you smoking?

The "Holy Trinity" includes Christ. How do you propose to baptize in the Holy Trinity an not have Christ in mind?

I am wondering the same - how is it heretical to baptize in the name of Christ without having the Trinitarian dogma in mind?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How is it heretical to baptize in the name of Christ without having the Trinitarian dogma in mind?

Interesting question. Who are you directing this question at? I did not say that anything was heretical. Those were your words.

Your questions implies that I called baptizing in the name of Christ without "having the Trinitarian dogma in mind" heretical. That is a strawman argument. I made no such statement. In fact, I did not infer that any of your positions were heretical.

I merely asked how it was that you could infer that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" would fail to have Christ in mind and therefore be heretical in your view.

This seems to be one of the biggest problems in discussing with you. You infer into our writings just as liberally as Lee did into the scripture. It is never what is said or written. It is what you want to be said or written. So you infer into the scripture to your benefit without any consideration of the reasonableness of your inference. And you infer into my posts to create the pretense that I said something that I didn't.

Answer my question as posed earlier (and now restated even more clearly if you were unable to understand it the first time).

Why is it that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" (something that I did not originally say) is presumed to not include an thought of Christ and therefore be heretical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Interesting question. Who are you directing this question at? I did not say that anything was heretical. Those were your words.

Your questions implies that I called baptizing in the name of Christ without "having the Trinitarian dogma in mind" heretical. That is a strawman argument. I made no such statement. In fact, I did not infer that any of your positions were heretical.

I merely asked how it was that you could infer that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" would fail to have Christ in mind and therefore be heretical in your view.

This seems to be one of the biggest problems in discussing with you. You infer into our writings just as liberally as Lee did into the scripture. It is never what is said or written. It is what you want to be said or written. So you infer into the scripture to your benefit without any consideration of the reasonableness of your inference. And you infer into my posts to create the pretense that I said something that I didn't.

Answer my question as posed earlier (and now restated even more clearly if you were unable to understand it the first time).

Why is it that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" (something that I did not originally say) is presumed to not include an thought of Christ and therefore be heretical?

My post was in response to InChristAlone's statement that to baptize in the name of Christ without the Trinity in mind is heretical.

The Bible is sufficient in showing the true meaning of Christ's words at the end of Matthew. The book of Acts, the earliest record we have of early church practice following Christ's ascension, shows nothing about invoking the Trinity during baptism.

The story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch shows that there is nothing more required to be baptized than to believe with all the heart that Jesus is the Son of God:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

In Acts 8:35 it describes that Philip was explaining to the Ethopian the "Good news about Jesus". Nowhere does it describe Philip explaining to him about the Trinity, or that he must "think about the Trinity" as he is being baptized.

The fact is that no one in the New Testament baptized in the name of the Father, name of the Son and name of the Spirit, not even the apostles.
This is despite Jesus's command to do so at the end of Matthew.
So we can infer that the intended meaning of Christ's words:

Matt 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

was this:

Acts 8:37 "And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
"

and this:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Acts 2:38

It has nothing to do with repeating titles "In the name of the Son" (Son is not a name, but a title).

To answer your question, to "baptize in the Holy Trinity without Christ in mind" is to do contrary to what the Scriptures say - baptism is in the name of Christ. "Son" is not a name, it is a title. In the Bible no one ever healed or cast out a demon "in the name of the Son, be healed".

This actually proves that the Catholic and Orthodox churches do not have their origins in AD33 in the book of Acts (their claims to past history are bogus), but later to early first or second century, when the Trinitarian dogma was almost universally adopted.

[OBW]

Evangelical,

And on this trip down memory lane, it is relevant that I ask about something else.

A few posts back I asked concerning the use of a preferred name to cure differences in opinion about doctrines. Let me restate the question and give some background:

Prior to the 1900s, there was no such thing as the local churches. No one had stated or presumed that "church in [city]" was a prescribed format for the name of all assemblies of the church. Then during the 1900s, Nee came along and created this prescription. While he makes reference to scripture, it is the lack of significant mention of any other naming that he concludes that it is a prescribed format for names. Later, when confronted with the fact of the references to churches that were in houses where no reference to city was made, he dismisses it as being in contradiction to the city-church rule and therefore could not mean that the city-church rule was not correct.

(This is classic begging the question. Have an answer and dismiss evidence against it by reference to the answer. This allows anyone to create the answer they want and simply ignore evidence against it without discussion and is one of the logical errors in argument (analysis of alleged facts to arrive at truth).)

So far, you have continued to restate Nee's (and Lee's) statements on this subject as if they are simply true and need no support. Because they have been said to be true by Nee and Lee, there is no question that it is true. It is irrelevant that the scripture does not actually say it.

So when you read 1 Corinthians, you presume that the problem is that they were following certain teachers. If you read the words Paul uses, it is not about the teachers. It is about the dividing over the teachers.

No matter your rhetoric, you are a follower of Lee. I can safely declare that to be fact because your group's history is now full of declarations from the hallowed halls of Anaheim and the LSM that assemblies that decided to stop their standing orders with the LSM and use its materials sparingly were declared persona non grata and expelled from fellowship with the groups that continued to read primarily Lee and secondarily the scripture.

First question. Can you seriously argue that this does not establish that you are quite willing and actively dividing from anyone, no matter what name they use, that does not openly and willingly focus almost exclusively on the teachings of Witness Lee?

Second question. No matter how you choose to answer the first question, can you seriously say that a name cures the division that you are practicing? Can you declare that a church with the name "Luther" anywhere in it is simply following Luther to the exclusion of others? Or that one that has the word "Bible" in it but no reference to any person is somehow divided more so than one that rejects even those of the same fellowship that simply reduce their intake of the teachings of the preferred teacher, Witness Lee?

[Evangelical]

If a church was founded by Lee, why would they not focus on Lee's teachings? Is so many hundred books not enough to read?
To do so would bring in all sorts of teachings and they would be blown about by "every wind of doctrine" ephesians 4:14.

There is no doubt that Lutheranism is based upon the beliefs and teachings of Luther. Lutheran beliefs are expressed in numerous historical Lutheran confessions, most of which were penned by Luther himself or early Lutheran leaders. Yet you say this is not a division about a teacher. Obviously changing a name does not change the church, but it seems that if the Lutheran and other churches are not so divided as you have said, then perhaps it is only the name which divides them, and which stops them from joining together.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a church was founded by Lee, why would they not focus on Lee's teachings? Is so many hundred books not enough to read?
To do so would bring in all sorts of teachings and they would be blown about by "every wind of doctrine" ephesians 4:14.

There is no doubt that Lutheranism is based upon the beliefs and teachings of Luther. Lutheran beliefs are expressed in numerous historical Lutheran confessions, most of which were penned by Luther himself or early Lutheran leaders. Yet you say this is not a division about a teacher. Obviously changing a name does not change the church, but it seems that if the Lutheran and other churches are not so divided as you have said, then perhaps it is only the name which divides them, and which stops them from joining together.

And with this you ignore the questions raised.

Look again at the last two paragraphs and respond.

And putting it all a different way, if King of Glory Lutheran Church (near where I work, and not far from the assembly of the denomination, "the Local churches") were to drop its name, and open its communion to all believers, would that cure all the differences in doctrine as far as you are concerned and make them fully included on your places to visit if you came to Dallas?

I had to make it more difficult.

Or being a little doctrinally simple, if it was Grace Bible Church that dropped the name (also near where I work). And what about Irving Bible Church? Not in Dallas, but still in the area and already bears the name of the city, and nothing in its current name that is designed to be exclusive (I think we all agree on the Bible and church). They have no set preference for Bible translation (as long as it can be read by the members and others). And they agree on the basics of the faith and open their communion to all believers based on their own personal declaration that they are believers.

Would there be any problems with any of these? Does the existence of an already-standing group with the name "church in Dallas" or "church in Irving" cause a problem? If so, what problem(s)? And if so what would you say to Coppell Bible Church or another church in that city (different city — no LRC franchise in the city). Or some church in Lewisville?

Or do we now get down to the next layer of criteria to be "proper"?

Are we required to come under the leadership of Benson Phillips, Ray Graver, Ed Marks, Ron Kangas, and others associated with either the LSM or the church in Anaheim?

Just asking. Where does it end? Does the name really cure the problems?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Or do we now get down to the next layer of criteria to be "proper"?

Are we required to come under the leadership of Benson Phillips, Ray Graver, Ed Marks, Ron Kangas, and others associated with either the LSM or the church in Anaheim?

Just asking. Where does it end? Does the name really cure the problems?

Exactly OBW. It's no longer about a name that you take, but whose ministry are you under?
This leads to the question, what is the ground of the church? Is it Christ? Is it a ministry? If' it's Christ, there should be no problem setting ministries aside. Last time I was in a LC/LSM meeting in July 2014, the HWFMR specifically said the basis of fellowship is the ministry. That being said, for LSM affiliated local churches, the ground of the church is the LSM publications.

[OBW]

In reference to the title of the thread, I note that for the most part, the biblical record is of God leading people to follow him. The exception is the use of the Babylonians to punish them for their idolatry. Outside of this there is little, if any, reference to God as leading the people into problems then leading them out. While He did lead the original clan to Egypt, it was not to be slaves, but to be preserved during a famine. The reason they stayed a few hundred years is not given. Just stated as being so. Then he led them elsewhere.

I say this because my problem has always been with the idea that we were definitely led into the LRC. If I could have known what was hidden behind the curtains, I would never have gone. The fact that Lee's nonsense was hidden behind a curtain was his own doing to keep from scaring away his targets. I am not under the belief that being part of an aberrant sect/cult is somehow part of God's sovereign will. I do not read God's sovereignty in that way. What I do read is that He uses whatever we give him for our benefit. So I learned something from my 14+ years there. But I do not think that God led me in. Just used it and led me out.