A Plague Upon Denominationalism!

[testallthings]

A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we
should be denominated by the name of Christ, as the wife is named by her husband’s
name. As long as the church of Christ has to say, “My right arm is Episcopalian, and
my left arm is Wesleyan, and my right foot is Baptist, and my left foot is
Presbyterian or Congregational,” she is not ready for the marriage. She will be ready
when she has washed out these stains, when all her members have “one Lord, one
faith, one baptism.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon

What do you think about this statement?

(I would like to see a discussion between only two posters at the time. Someone will comment on this tread, then anyone who responds will be in the discussion for three turns. After 3 replies, a new set of 2 different posters can start their discussion, and so on... if there is no reply to a post for more than a week, a new poster can feel free to step in. All this, of course if Unto agrees.)

[Evangelical]

I agree with the point that the denominations are a stain on Christianity.

[UntoHim]

Spurgeon strikes again!

I believe that, after all, there is more truth in this world now with all the apparent divisions of Christians by ten times than there would have been if we had been united in a nominal union into some one great church, which might, perhaps have rotted as thoroughly as the old Church of Rome did before the days of Luther.

and even more sharper to the point here:

Beloved, the true church is now in the forming, and is therefore not visible. There are many churches; but as to the one church of Christ, we see it neither here nor there. We speak of the visible church; but the term is not correct. The thing which we see is a mixture of believers and mere pretenders to faith. The church which is affianced unto the heavenly Bridegroom is not visible as yet; for she is in the process of formation.

I suspect that these Spurgeon quotes came after the original one posted by testallthings. They show a "matured view" of a seasoned Christian leader, who has perhaps seen so much, and experienced so much more. The view and understandings of such a mature believer leans towards the view that the Body of Christ is a "beautiful work in progress"...a progress in which the Lord of the Harvest is fully and completely in charge. Such a seasoned believer stands firm on the solid rock of our Savior's declaration: "I Will Build My Church!"
-

[countmeworthy]

A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we
should be denominated by the name of Christ,

Are not denominatons man made?
We are more than being 'denominated'. Christ is in us, in our spirit transforming our stinking thinking, renewing our mind by His Holy Spirit. Christianity, a man made religion may be denominated by the Name of Christ but many do not have Christ living and residing in their spirits.

The scriptures do not talk about us being denominated by the name of Christ. The scriptures talk about a true believer having Christ IN them, the Hope of Glory, that one day, (soon I believe) all true Blood washed believers will have Glorified bodies.

I myself am sooooo looking forward to that Glorious moment when in the twinkling of an eye I will be changed from this corruptible body into my incorruptible body, from this mortal body into my immortal, sinless body for all eternity.


From Evangelical:

I agree with the point that the denominations are a stain on Christianity.

Taking the denominations out of the equation, let's say there are no denominations whatsoever, no Baptists, Pentecostals etc... are you saying here that the LC/LSM is now the embodiment of Christianity?

Keep in mind you said denominations are a stain on Christianity. Just looking for some clarification here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Spurgeon strikes again!

and even more sharper to the point here:
I suspect that these Spurgeon quotes came after the original one posted by testallthings. They show a "matured view" of a seasoned Christian leader, who has perhaps seen so much, and experienced so much more. The view and understandings of such a mature believer leans towards the view that the Body of Christ is a "beautiful work in progress"...a progress in which the Lord of the Harvest is fully and completely in charge. Such a seasoned believer stands firm on the solid rock of our Savior's declaration: "I Will Build My Church!"
-

Having seen the rotten fruit up close, Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism.

It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Are not denominatons man made?
We are more than being 'denominated'. Christ is in us, in our spirit transforming our stinking thinking, renewing our mind by His Holy Spirit. Christianity, a man made religion may be denominated by the Name of Christ but many do not have Christ living and residing in their spirits.

The scriptures do not talk about us being denominated by the name of Christ. The scriptures talk about a true believer having Christ IN them, the Hope of Glory, that one day, (soon I believe) all true Blood washed believers will have Glorified bodies.

I myself am sooooo looking forward to that Glorious moment when in the twinkling of an eye I will be changed from this corruptible body into my incorruptible body, from this mortal body into my immortal, sinless body for all eternity.


From Evangelical:


Taking the denominations out of the equation, let's say there are no denominations whatsoever, no Baptists, Pentecostals etc... are you saying here that the LC/LSM is now the embodiment of Christianity?

Keep in mind you said denominations are a stain on Christianity. Just looking for some clarification here.

There would be no LC or need for LSM if denominations did not exist. To clarify what I mean by this - one reason the LC and LSM exists today is because of Christianity's failure to renounce denominations.
Over history, God has raised up a separate group of people to accomplish His will. LC is one of them.


Re "The scriptures do not talk about us being denominated by the name of Christ. " - I don't agree, I agree with Spurgeon. Being called Christian means a Christ-follower, it is to be denominated by the name of Christ. Christ is the only name we should be denominated by. The problem with denominations is that they add to or replace the name of Christ with something else.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There would be no LC or need for LSM if denominations did not exist.

Your very own statement is an indication that the LC as just another denomination.

[testallthings]

A WORD OF CLARIFICATION
As I stated in my first post, I hoped the discussion could be limited between only two members at the time. I was hoping that Evangelical and UntoHim could post 3 times before other 2 members would have their discussion. I thought this way could avoid a lot of confusion and be less stressful for one member to answer different posts at the same time.
If it is possible could we allow Evangelical and UntoHim to finish their discussion?
They had a first turn. Let them have another 2. Thanks.

[Evangelical]

I think this is my third and last post to pre-preemptively address the matter of LC being a denomination and Spurgeons quote.

Spurgeon saw the truth and God's will concerning denominations in Christianity. Spurgeon however was a baptist, and did not understand that holding to a rigid view of infant baptism was itself a denominational concept.
There is a belief that baptists are the true Christians, a group of people outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy who have stayed true to the apostles. I am not sure whether he believed in that or not. In any case, to denominate on the basis of baptism is not scriptural and is divisive.

Spurgeon also called himself a Calvinist. He said once "I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist". Spurgeon reveals himself to be an unspiritual person as he fails Paul's instructions "I follow Paul, I follow Calvin" test.

Some have said that LC is a denomination. However they are not a denomination because they stand apart from the denominations.

Because people are so used to the denominational concepts, they have no concept of a church existing apart from and distinct from the denominations. No one can ever answer me when I ask them to point to where the true non-denominational church actually is. They often respond with some airy fairy concept of the body of Christ that is invisible and intangible. They cannot point to a single group of physical people on the Earth and say "they are the non-denominational body of Christ". They will not do that because as soon as they do that they are declaring that all the denominations and possibly the very one they attend themselves, are false. That is why they call LC a denomination.

To a denominational person, the LC may look just like another denomination. The problem with denominational people, is that they try so hard to find ways to consider you as being in a denomination, instead of heeding Spurgeon's or Witness Lee's words, and trying to remove the stain of denominational-ism that afflicts them.

They would be wise to heed Spurgeon's instructions "She will be ready when she has washed out these stains", and focus on washing out their stains than trying to name the LC as "just another body-part". "The wife is named by her husbands name concept" is a view shared by Spurgeon and Lee. As I have said many times before, if a wife takes another name, as denominations are, then it is a problem. A woman who takes a name other than that of her husband is an adulteress and to be an adulteress with the world is to be an enemy of God. Therefore denominations are not just stains but enemies of God. Romans 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

[UntoHim]

My friend Evangelical, thou dost protest too much, methinks. You're preaching to the choir my boy, or should I say, against the choir. In any event, your claim that the Local Church of Witness Lee is not a denomination is not only insulting our intelligence, it's supposing that we have none at all.

Who's name is on EVERY message? Who is the author of EVERY outline? Who's name is associated with a great majority of the Hymns in the hymnal? The Local Church is most certainly a denomination, and it is a denomination of the most divisive kind - one which is based upon the person of a mere man and NOT on the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To a denominational person, the LC may look just like another denomination. The problem with denominational people, is that they try so hard to find ways to consider you as being in a denomination, instead of heeding Spurgeon's or Witness Lee's words, and trying to remove the stain of denominational-ism that afflicts them.

I am not a "denominational person." I am a third-generation "church kid" and FTTA graduate.

And merely stating that the you "stand apart from denominations" does not mean that you do not operate like one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend Evangelical, thou dost protest too much, methinks. You're preaching to the choir my boy, or should I say, against the choir. In any event, your claim that the Local Church of Witness Lee is not a denomination is not only insulting our intelligence, it's supposing that we have none at all.

Who's name is on EVERY message? Who is the author of EVERY outline? Who's name is associated with a great majority of the Hymns in the hymnal? The Local Church is most certainly a denomination, and it is a denomination of the most divisive kind - one which is based upon the person of a mere man and NOT on the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

See, you are just confirming my previous statement:

"The problem with denominational people, is that they try so hard to find ways to consider you as being in a denomination, instead of heeding Spurgeon's or Witness Lee's words, and trying to remove the stain of denominational-ism that afflicts them. "

You are so focused on stating or proving that "we are of Witness Lee" that you do not focus on the real problem here which is the stain of denominationalism.

You have said before "I will build My Church" the issue is you don't know where that Church actually is, or which group of people today is actually the Church which God is building. And any group that attempts do be the "My Church", like we are, is automatically labelled as "just another denomination".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I am not a "denominational person." I am a third-generation "church kid" and FTTA graduate.

And merely stating that the you "stand apart from denominations" does not mean that you do not operate like one.

Your previous statement confirmed you are a denominational person because of your attitude towards the LC as being "just another denomination. "

The first step in being free from the denominational mindset is to see all believers as one in the body of Christ.

[testallthings]

Evangelical,

you replied 3 times to UntoHim (he can still post 1 more time) and 1 times to countmeworthy and Koinonia . After the third reply, please take a break. Let other members share their opinions. Thanks to all.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your previous statement confirmed you are a denominational person because of your attitude towards the LC as being "just another denomination. "

Circular reasoning.

The first step in being free from the denominational mindset is to see all believers as one in the body of Christ.

I do. And more so than ever.

[testallthings]

UntoHim
Spurgeon strikes again!
Quote:
I believe that, after all, there is more truth in this world now with all the apparent divisions of Christians by ten times than there would have been if we had been united in a nominal union into some one great church, which might, perhaps have rotted as thoroughly as the old Church of Rome did before the days of Luther.
and even more sharper to the point here:
Quote:
Beloved, the true church is now in the forming, and is therefore not visible. There are many churches; but as to the one church of Christ, we see it neither here nor there. We speak of the visible church; but the term is not correct. The thing which we see is a mixture of believers and mere pretenders to faith. The church which is affianced unto the heavenly Bridegroom is not visible as yet; for she is in the process of formation.

I suspect that these Spurgeon quotes came after the original one posted by testallthings. They show a "matured view" of a seasoned Christian leader, who has perhaps scene so much, and experienced so much more. The view and understandings of such a mature believer leans towards the view that the Body of Christ is a "beautiful work in progress"...a progress in which the Lord of the Harvest is fully and completely in charge. Such a seasoned believer stands firm on the solid rock of our Savior's declaration: "I Will Build My Church!"
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................
I could not find out when your first quote was delivered. What I find out, though, is that the second quotation and my quotations were part of the same sermon:
Sermon #2096 Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 1
Volume 35 www.spurgeongems.org 1
“THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB”
NO. 2096
A SERMON
DELIVERED ON LORD’S-DAY MORNING, JULY 21, 1889,
BY C. H. SPURGEON,
AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.

He spoke those words about denominations 3 years before going to be with the Lord. I agree with you that they “show a 'matured view' of a seasoned Christian Leader.”

[testallthings]

Let me break the quotations under this thread in 2 parts.

A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we
should be denominated by the name of Christ, as the wife is named by her husband’sname.

Question 1: Do you agree that there should be but one denomination by taking only the name of Christ, like a wife is named by her husband's name? If you disagree, would you please explain why?

As long as the church of Christ has to say, “My right arm is Episcopalian, and
my left arm is Wesleyan, and my right foot is Baptist, and my left foot is
Presbyterian or Congregational,” she is not ready for the marriage. She will be ready
when she has washed out these stains, when all her members have “one Lord, one
faith, one baptism.”

[B]Question 2: Do you agree that the Church will be ready for the marriage only if she has washed the stains of denominationalism? If you disagree, would you please explain why?[B]

I am not interested in your guessing or speculations. What I appreciate is your opinion supported by logical arguments and/or Bible verses. Thank you in advance.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Question 1: Do you agree that there should be but one denomination by taking only the name of Christ, like a wife is named by her husband's name? If you disagree, would you please explain why?

The question is phrased based on a presumption that any kind of notation concerning the make-up, location, thoughts on particular doctrines, etc., is a spiritual anomaly that must be avoided at all costs. Further, the analogy of the wife taking her husband's name is something added to the discussion by Witness Lee, not by the Bible.

But first, the various churches of Christianity all claim Christ above all other issues. With some exceptions, non of these groups stands at odds with the others in such a way that they declare the others to be illegitimate. You might find some wording of recent years concerning the RCC's view of other Christian groups, but you will find that even there, they are not so much at odds that they deny the status of any group as an assembly of Christians, which is all that a church is. At the level of universal church, I am not sure who excludes any true Christians from that. (But I do note that a recent analogy presented here concerning the "right" boat in the ocean would seem to imply that they dismiss all who are not part of their assembly.)

While you may consider some of this to be opinion, I believe that it undermines the claim by the non-scriptural source that there is such a husband's name metaphor that applies to the landscape of Christians.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Question 2: Do you agree that the Church will be ready for the marriage only if she has washed the stains of denominationalism? If you disagree, would you please explain why?

I do not agree with such a statement. Further, I look to the reality of activities and fellowship that occur between groups of different denominations, even including across the RCC–Protestant "divide" and find that the boogeyman of denominationalism does not exist in the way that the proclaimer of that boogeyman has declared it to be.

As a result of my assessment of the whole "denominational" debate, I am convinced that the problem is that there has been created the appearance of a problem that does not match with actual observations. Further, that the problem that is declared to exist is found in stories about women calling themselves by someone other than their husband's name, but not found as something substantial in the Bible as a definitional problem. Rather, the claim of such a problem is a declaration that God has not been in control of the church for some 18+ centuries and only with the addition of yet another denomination can the scourge of division in the body be solved.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by OBW

The question is phrased based on a presumption that any kind of notation concerning the make-up, location, thoughts on particular doctrines, etc., is a spiritual anomaly that must be avoided at all costs.

So, in your opinion, are denominations the spiritual norm, and if so should they be encouraged and spread even more?

Originally Posted by OBW

Further, the analogy of the wife taking her husband's name is something added to the discussion by Witness Lee, not by the Bible.

The quotation under this thread comes from Spurgeon's Sermon (1889). It is Spurgeon's analogy for a sermon called “The Marriage of the Lamb”. The analogy well suits the topic (in my opinion).

Originally Posted by OBW

But first, the various churches of Christianity all claim Christ above all other issues. With some exceptions, non of these groups stands at odds with the others in such a way that they declare the others to be illegitimate. You might find some wording of recent years concerning the RCC's view of other Christian groups, but you will find that even there, they are not so much at odds that they deny the status of any group as an assembly of Christians, which is all that a church is. At the level of universal church, I am not sure who excludes any true Christians from that. (But I do note that a recent analogy presented here concerning the "right" boat in the ocean would seem to imply that they dismiss all who are not part of their assembly.) While you may consider some of this to be opinion, I believe that it undermines the claim by the non-scriptural source that there is such a husband's name metaphor that applies to the landscape of Christians.

In Spurgeon's quotation, there is no mention of a group that declares the others to be illegitimate. That is not his argument.

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not agree with such a statement. Further, I look to the reality of activities and fellowship that occur between groups of different denominations, even including across the RCC–Protestant "divide" and find that the boogeyman of denominationalism does not exist in the way that the proclaimer of that boogeyman has declared it to be.

Maybe you see better than Spurgeon.

Originally Posted by OBW

As a result of my assessment of the whole "denominational" debate, I am convinced that the problem is that there has been created the appearance of a problem that does not match with actual observations. Further, that the problem that is declared to exist is found in stories about women calling themselves by someone other than their husband's name, but not found as something substantial in the Bible as a definitional problem.

Maybe you see better than Spurgeon.

Originally Posted by OBW

Rather, the claim of such a problem is a declaration that God has not been in control of the church for some 18+ centuries and only with the addition of yet another denomination can the scourge of division in the body be solved.

God has been in control when Adam fell and yet this cannot negate that Adam fell.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

So, in your opinion, are denominations the spiritual norm, and if so should they be encouraged and spread even more?

I think that the problem is that people are too hung up on separating spiritual from secular. And too hung up on deciding whether their version is spiritual and then presuming that others must not be.

Your suggestion that a particular way is the norm and should be encouraged to spread is to ignore that every church written to in the epistles was in a different state of affairs in many ways. There is no indication of any but one of the churches having an ongoing display of "speaking in tongues." If we are to presume that everything was simply understood and followed in the exact same manner, then the epistles are the evidence against that presumption. And nothing in the epistles simply corrected everything to a central, only-one-way-to-do-it format.

Paul established many of the churches he wrote to. Yet they were not simply the same.

Our problem all these centuries later is that despite our disdain for the way the RCC goes about it, having some with significant training in both pure theology and in the history of our theology keeps a regular link back to the thinking that went before. (Yes, despite our desire for new and fresh, it is the tried-and-true that is the most certain. A sort of "that which I received I delivered unto you.") And since every assembly cannot necessarily have what it believes to be sufficient resources to support that link on their own, they band together.

And despite everyone's desire for all to think precisely the same thing on all issues, they do not, so there is a tendency for us to join in what has recently been called a homophily — a sort of birds of a feather grouping. We naturally group. And despite our propensity to gasp at the admission that we group separately from others, we tend to find ourselves unable to return to that from whence we came (the RCC), so it is difficult to argue that there is no basis for the groupings.

Yet despite these groupings, most do not consider that the others are not Christians and not church. (Yes, there are exclusivist groups besides the LRC. And there are a lot of people that think that the RCC is simply heathen while somehow managing to teach enough correctly to have a lot of Christians within it — I disagree with that position.)

It is the overstated rhetoric of those who would have everyone join their group or be reprobate that keeps us focused on the things that separate us rather than what unites us. Yes, when we focus on our disagreements, it seems like a problem.

But if you move to a somewhat rural place and as is commonly found, you have the option of a Methodist and a Baptist church, how do you chose? Do you go to the Methodists to be one with those who believe that salvation is at least somewhat tenuous and can be lost? Or do you join the Baptists who hold to a mostly Calvinist way of thinking? But having done that, do you think the others are not Christian? That they are not a church? That they are reprobate and leading people to perdition?

Do you think that instead starting a new group that claims to not have such separation (like no identifiable name), yet still holds to its version of which doctrines are right and which are wrong solves anything? More like it has just increased the separation.

Of course, there are many churches that do at least sort of do it on their own. But even most of those follow-on behind some source, often of significance, but without joining the group. And since they are not somewhat bound by the group, they will be a little free to wander. So now there is a variation on that source group.

But all of this focuses on how we understand scripture. And when I read scripture, I find a lot that I could understand in several different ways that are not relevant to whether I believe in Christ and follow the best that I can see to. I sat last Sunday biting my tongue as there was some discussion or predestination. It went beyond just whether or not God predestines some to salvation and some to perdition (I am still not sure how complete that is intended to be but I acknowledge that the creator has the right to do things however he sees fit.) But it was wandering into the realm of stating that everything that happens is "ordained" specifically. That the electrical storm that knocked the power out in parts of the area was preordained to affect all of the residents of the area in the manner that they were affected (Woke up late, had battery backup and no effect, etc.) I am fully aware that God could actually do all of that. But I question whether it would be something that he would actually do.

And when it says "God works all things together for good . . ." is it intending to mean that God causes all of the things that happens so he can work them out for good (it doesn't actually say that), or is it that he takes what comes, whether as a result of nature, others, etc., as well as things he actually directs, and causes the end result to be good (for those in Christ Jesus)?

Do you know the answer? If you think you do, are you sure? Is it because you read certain words in a certain way even though they could be read differently?

If I tend to think in a particular way (that is not simply contrary to the gospel of Christ) should I join with a group that will be constantly grinding at me because we disagree on so many things? When every sermon is so focused on the backsliders, or on the fact that everything is so preordained that I am wondering why it matters what I do because it is going to go exactly as planned? I would rather at least set most of the differences aside by not having them confront me every time we get together. I am not saying that I have a problem with them as Christians. Or understand that they may be more right than I am. I am open to consideration. (And if you have followed any of my Calvinism v Arminianism discussions, you will find that I am not sure that either is simply right or simply wrong.) And I still accept them as Christian brothers and sisters. That includes the UMC church just a few blocks down from the place I meet that has openly accepted gays. Do I think there are problems with that? You bet. But I also think that there are problems with the idea that we should be so closed to them that they will not even come among us if they are open to seek the truth about Christ and let him begin to work on the rest.

- - - -

So, do you understand my "opinion"? I think that the focus on denominations is to intend to separate from those that do not simply think like me while a focus on Christ is to intend to be one with all Christians even if we do not agree on everything.

There is no thought that more denominations is good. But enough assemblies to attract as many as will come (or as are ordained to come — whichever way you want to look at it) is a good thing. If we are all focused on what is the First Thing, then the fact of denominations will be irrelevant to the moving forward of the Church.

[testallthings]

IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO

Yes, Paul established many churches (or assemblies). He didn't establish any denominations. He didn't set up a “Pauline church” in Corinth, a “Grace church” in Rome, a “Heavenly Call church” in Ephesus, and so on. Appealing to Paul to justify denominationalism is like appealing to Hitler to solve the problem of antisemitism.

The bone of contention under this thread is denominationalism. Spurgeon was not against other Christians (at least in that quotations), neither am I. This was never in question when I started this thread. This is the second time you raised the issue so I just wanted to make clear my position. When I see a brother, regardless of his denominational “color”, I am happy to see a brother in Christ.

Nonetheless, denominations are a problem. So, someone has to chose between a Methodist church or a Baptist church, or the other 30000.
In the beginning it was not so.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by testallthings

When I see a brother, regardless of his denominational “color”, I am happy to see a brother in Christ.

Nonetheless, denominations are a problem. So, someone has to chose between a Methodist church or a Baptist church, or the other 30000.
In the beginning it was not so .

I agree with what you're saying testallthings. Having met with several groups over the years (LC and Baptists) and having Christian brothers from different denominations (Lutheran), there's one common theme and that's an unwillingness to meet apart from respective LC, Baptists, and Lutherans. Where one meets on Sundays is an invisible barrier. Doctrines and ministry publications becomes the basis for fellowship and not the Bible.
How good and pleasant it would be to set aside doctrines and ministry publications and just make the Bible the basis of fellowship.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Terry

How good and pleasant it would be to set aside doctrines and ministry publications and just make the Bible the basis of fellowship.

How good indeed!

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Having seen the rotten fruit up close, Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism.
It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.

Ohio, your deductive reasoning seems to be very inadequate, to say the least. Try again, you might be more lucky the next time.

[testallthings]

I find UntoHim and Ohio posts quite interesting.
The first one tries to justify Spurgeon's curse as an immature (we have seen that actually Spurgeon delivered those words at the end of his life) understanding of the Church, while the second tries to attribute Spurgeon's harsh words to his reaction against Darby Exclusivism. This second deduction requires more imagination or simply the assumption that Spurgeon suffered some sort of skizophrenia. Why would he attack Episcopalian, Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist and forget to mention the Brethren?

[Ohio]

Spurgeon on the Darby Brethren

Dear SIR,—If any more testimony were needed in confirmation of the admirable and truthful article in this month's Sword and Trowel, I could give much from personal experience, and the more so that I had a narrow or rather providential escape from falling into the meshes of this truly Jesuitical system, which would probably have dried up every loving feeling in my heart, and sapped away every earnest desire for winning perishing souls for Jesus. I can endorse from personal observation almost every sentence in your article as to the effect of Darbyism on personal character, though I was not aware before of the extent of the unscripturalness of their doctrines. It would be well if your article could be put into the hands of every Darbyite not too deeply inoculated with the pernicious principles of Darbyism, and circulated far and wide in every evangelical congregation of Christians.
The following story illustrating the principles and effects of Darbyism, and which I fear is only a sample of many others, I can vouch for:—Some years ago I attended an evening meeting for studying the word of God where believers of various denominations met, and for some time it went on very happily. In an evil hour an old Darbyite joined our meeting, and by his winning ways, gained a considerable influence, invited several of the brethren to his own house, to instruct them more fully in the new doctrines. The result was, they left the various churches in which they had been earnestly working for God, not to become unsectarian, but to unite with a sect more exclusive than any save the church of Rome. Three were members of the Tabernacle; one was a fellow worker with myself, one of the most loving spirits, my own son, in the Gospel, with a conscience so tender that he could not rest at night without doing something for his Lord. Those among them whom I still know personally have become the most selfish, unfeeling, and censorious of any Christians I know. Darbyism has so changed them as to quench every earnest purpose, to make them live only for the mutual edification of their narrow clique, and render them oblivious to the claim of the perishing millions around them. From being successful workers in the Master's cause, they have settled down at their ease in Zion, only to make a spasmodic effort when the Spirit moves them, which is very seldom. Were these brethren to allow the same liberty to others that they claim for themselves, we should not complain, but this they refuse—"They are the people," every other Christian is wrong; no matter how earnestly a man is working, or how many souls are added to the Lord by his ministry, if he cannot utter the Shibboleth of Darbyism, he is counted the veriest heretic. The scriptural text, "every tree is known by its fruit," is utterly ignored; and while compelled to recognize the paucity of converts to the gospel through their preaching, and the mighty results through unorthodox laborers, it all goes for nothing: they tell you, with the greatest calmness, God is sovereign, and works as he wills, though it is certainly strange that God refuses to bless the select company to whom alone he has revealed the true interpretation of his will. Two other thoughts concerning them might be added, in addition to Mr. Grant's evidence. First, preaching the gospel to sinners is but a secondary consideration, their main thought being "breaking bread on Lord's-day morning;" and though this precious ordinance is called by them by so simple a name, it is exalted to almost the same position and importance as the lying Romish sacrifice. The Christian brethren who are not actually taking a share in the preaching, by their own testimony, seldom attend the "gospel preaching," not needing to hear a reiteration of such simple principles, but remain at home on Sunday afternoon and evenings "studying the word," gaining more and more light while shutting it out from a dying world. Secondly, the Lord's-day is utterly ignored; about its claim they have literally no conscience. One of the most intelligent of them assured me he would as soon buy and sell on that day as any other except so far as it hindered worship; and those weak minded believers who are so foolish as to testify against the desecration of the day of rest, are looked upon with supreme contempt. Much might also be added of the guiltiness of the Darby brethren in neglecting missionary and benevolent works; unlike him they call their Master, they cannot descend to the earthly wants of poor sinners, but leave them to the tender mercies of their fellow sinners; and such a man of God as George Muller, before whose mighty faith they might well shrink, comes in for a fair share of their execration.
To any earnest workers for Jesus who want to take ease without compunction, to shut their hearts and pockets to the cries of those who seek their compassion, to shirk the responsibilities God has laid upon them as Christian men and citizens, to shut up the genial sympathy they now feel to all who love the Savior, and to sneak into heaven without having a jewel to deck their crown—I would say join the Darbyites.

[testallthings]

Dear Sir Ohio,
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Dear Sir Ohio,
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Did I not only respond to your post to me?

I posted an extremely informative article with numerous pertinent comments from Charles Spurgeon on Dabyism. Note that it was the essence of Darbyism which spawned the Recovery movement in China and the US.

At the heart of the EXCLUSIVE MESSAGE is their condemnation on any and all denominations, initially attracting many disenchanted yet seeking Christians, but eventually becoming a far more divisive and destructive sect than those they condemn.

[testallthings]

Ohio, you did not respond to my post.

Let's recap.


A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we
should be denominated by the name of Christ, as the wife is named by her husband’s
name. As long as the church of Christ has to say, “My right arm is Episcopalian, and
my left arm is Wesleyan, and my right foot is Baptist, and my left foot is
Presbyterian or Congregational,” she is not ready for the marriage. She will be ready
when she has washed out these stains, when all her members have “one Lord, one
faith, one baptism.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon

What do you think about this statement?



Ohio: “Having seen the rotten fruit up close, Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism.

It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.”




TAT: “Ohio, your deductive reasoning seems to be very inadequate, to say the least. Try again, you might be more lucky the next time.”


TAT: “This second deduction requires more imagination or simply the assumption that Spurgeon suffered some sort of skizophrenia. Why would he attack Episcopalian, Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist and forget to mention the Brethren?”


You are only defending your assertion that “Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism”. I didn't ask you to prove this. I asked to prove your deduction: “It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.”


P.S.
How do you know the article you posted was written by Spurgeon? Is this another of your deductions?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Ohio, you did not respond to my post.

Let's recap.


A plague upon denominationalism! There should be but one denomination: we
should be denominated by the name of Christ, as the wife is named by her husband’s
name. As long as the church of Christ has to say, “My right arm is Episcopalian, and
my left arm is Wesleyan, and my right foot is Baptist, and my left foot is
Presbyterian or Congregational,” she is not ready for the marriage. She will be ready
when she has washed out these stains, when all her members have “one Lord, one
faith, one baptism.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon

What do you think about this statement?



Ohio: “Having seen the rotten fruit up close, Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism.

It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.”




TAT: “Ohio, your deductive reasoning seems to be very inadequate, to say the least. Try again, you might be more lucky the next time.”


TAT: “This second deduction requires more imagination or simply the assumption that Spurgeon suffered some sort of skizophrenia. Why would he attack Episcopalian, Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist and forget to mention the Brethren?”


You are only defending your assertion that “Spurgeon was a fierce critic of Darby Exclusivism”. I didn't ask you to prove this. I asked to prove your deduction: “It's likely that quote was in response to their attacks on him.”


P.S.
How do you know the article you posted was written by Spurgeon? Is this another of your deductions?

It's hard to hear you when you are constantly shouting at me.

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with the point that the denominations are a stain on Christianity.

Yep, this is true, I agree. But it doesn't seem to me that the LC is exempt from being called 'just another denomination'.

The lifestudy of 1Cor (msg 6) points out 1 Cor. 1: 12 how it says that some say "I [am] of Christ" like thats a bad thing - implying that all the other precious believers are not of Christ, because they say they are of Peter or whoever. Good point, I agree with the lifestudy on this point. All believers are of Christ, its terrible to say that you are, and so-and-so isn't.

However, even though the lifestudy teaches this, most LCers fail to practise it in daily life, even coworkers. The reality is, most 'saints' are intrinsically exclusive about being 'of Christ' deep to their core. They might agree outwardly that other Christians are genuine believers also, but they'll still refer to LCers as saints and people in denomination as mere Christians.

I would go as far as to argue that saying "I am of Christ" is worse than saying "I am of Peter" because of its arrogance. Way to shun and exclude the majority of the Body of Christ :|

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's hard to hear you when you are constantly shouting at me.

It is hard to believe this last comment comes from someone who has contributed closely to 7000 posts.

I am going to take a break. Evangelical and Bradley it's your turn now (unless Ohio decides otherwise).

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical and Bradley it's your turn now (unless Ohio decides otherwise).

Don't drag me into this! I hardly read any of this thread, other than the title.

[OBW]

TAT,

It is clear that Spurgeon lived and wrote in a time when there was more animosity among the various groups. At the time it was common for many of the groups to see themselves as either the only true group, or sufficiently so that any others, though still Christian, were relegated to sub-par status. It is easy to see that this kind of adversarial existence is not the primary landscape at this time.

I will not say that denominations are the preferred way to exist. But at the same time, there are sufficient differences in general belief among Christians that for all of them to meet within a single assembly would be nothing short of disruptive and possibly cause a renewed level of animosity.

And the problem is not names, history, primary leaders, apostolic succession, etc. It is how we now choose to go about dealing with uncertainty in understanding.

It was an undercurrent for centuries. There were small splinters that came and went. Then Martin Luther came along at a time when there was some level of dissatisfaction among many who didn't even see what Luther did. But still he did the "normal" thing for the time. He brought up the questions. 90+ of them. Covered a lot of ground. The standard practice was that a group of friars, priests, etc., would gather and begin to discuss the questions. You could call it the beginnings of a Jerusalem 15 council. Anything that went beyond what was the current norms and wasn't resolved to verify the status quo was officially, or unofficially kicked uphill. If it survived long enough, it got to the top and they poured over it all. And then the Pope would make some kind of decree as to what they had decided.

But there were at least a couple of things in Luther's list that were displeasing to the upper echelons, so they basically quashed the list before there was a meeting. So Luther posted it again. Eventually they were so angered that they ordered him to come answer.

The rest is history. And from that time, rather than that have open discussion with the Bible, history, and prayer, the dissenting parties have simply left to do their own thing without even trying to vet their ideas. Effectively, Luther did to others what the RCC had done to him. Not under threat of physical harm, but by rejecting them. Luther did not want to think about anything else. He was done, so his group stopped. When the dispute between those who pushed what is now called Calvinism were faced with questions by those who thought it might not be that way, the two sides didn't engage in discussion. They simply rejected each other and the questioning ended.

And so on until today.

Now the story about 30,000 separate groups in the U.S. is really not very meaningful. There are really significant magnitudes fewer. But they do not all align as part of a denomination. They answer to no one. But they have doctrinal positions that are mostly the same as other established groups and would easily be seen as part of one of them if they chose to do so.

But even if we bring it down to only, say, 100 real differences, it is clear that we do not agree on everything. I know theologians — seminary professors — who are mostly from or teaching at one particular seminary. But they do not agree with each other on everything. Yet neither are they at odds with each other. That is the truth of the "divisions" that you rant about. They are not so divisive. Each will start into a particular passage and note that there are many interpretations, even giving some of the more common differences, then stating that they think a particular one is the better choice, but usually admitting that they could be wrong.

From that seminary come men and women who will preach in all kinds of places. Baptists churches, Bible churches, Presbyterian/Reformed churches, and so on. I know of at least one who is actively preaching in an Anglican church in the area.

But the LRC, while in many ways not different from any of these others, has taken a position that something that they can only claim is there if you ignore what is actually said makes them special. They are "unique" and specially blessed by God. And based on that position they are free to dismiss all others and refer to them as Babylonian, harlots, mooing cows . . . the list goes on. All of this under umbrella of having "unity." Something that was prayed with respect to al believers, not just those who jump through the right hoops.

Like I challenged Evangelical before, can you defend any of the animosity toward other Christians in the light of the command to love one another?

I really don't give a RA what Spurgeon said about denominations back at the turn of the previous century. He probably had reasons at the time. But in this day and age, the denominations are less divided from each other than the LRC is from everyone. And it is not because the denominations and free groups exclude the LRC. It is because the LRC excludes everyone else. Oh they speak of unity . . . inside their doors. But they will not go out to any others. The others have to come to them. Forget the highways and byways. Let them find us. Let them respond to a venomous rhetoric about their retched condition and seek us out.

If there ever was a plague upon denominationalism, it has been mostly lifted. It would appear that the plague has moved, along with its garlic room, to the LRC. A group that will appeal to those who desire to be special. But not to those who use their minds. Who refuse to check their brains at the door.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the heart of the EXCLUSIVE MESSAGE is their condemnation .

At the heart is condemnation. I agree. Israel may be poor, and miserable, and so forth. But who is the one to climb up on the hill, like Balaam, and curse them? "A Plague upon them!" is the title, here; who'll lift their voice to put a plague upon God's redeemed flock?

No, prudence dictates to think others better than you, and take the least place. If names bother you, don't take a name. But who wants to curse our brethren merely for their names?

Our heart should be love, not condemnation. We don't agree, always, but love overcomes all.

We agree: Love one another. We agree: God loved us and sent His Son. We agree: whosoever shall believe and confess that God raised Jesus from the dead shall be saved. And our love causes us to reach out, in love, and not to scorn and turn away.

And so forth. It's not complicated. Those who give their hearts to an idea like "the local ground" or "the ministry" or cursing "denominationism" seem vulnerable to condemn all others who can't get in line behind the supposed vision of the age. Then it becomes a ministry of condemnation, not reconciliation. Ohio is right: at the heart is condemnation.

So beware your ideas, where they take you.

[JJ]

Well said Aron!

I nominate this for featured post

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Well said Aron!

I nominate this for featured post

Our doctrines can't hold God. Only love can hold God. And we can only love by letting go.

I know, I know; the doctrinaire will rush in waving "Hold fast to the teachings which you have received from me", &c. But such statements pre-suppose love, they don't obviate it.

Ohio has shown us what happened with Darby's teachings. They drove people apart, often in tears. What truths are these, that were supposedly recovered?

[testallthings]

My apologies to brother Ohio

I apologize to bro. Ohio for the harsh way I have treated him in my last posts. Even before posting the first one I felt guilty, even more because I knew he is older than me. It was the first time in my life I dared to speak in such a tone to someone older than me. Ohio (and the rest of you) doesn't know (because I didn't say much about myself) that we have many things in common, even our passion for the history of the Brethren! I am sure we could sit together and talk for hours and find (surprisingly for him) many, many points in common (I am not going to tell which ones).

There is something, though, that has not escaped my notice since I started reading posts on this forum: Ohio (and maybe others) has sometimes a tendency to be “looking for trouble”. I saw this in his heated exchange with amrkelly, with OBW (he made OBW really, really mad!), and his many attempts to lure me into an argument with some unnecessary and out of the blue comments on Darby and/or the Brethren (If my deduction is wrong brother Ohio, please correct me). I turned a blind eye to the first, the second, the third (I don't know exactly how many) attempt until the last one. Well actually at first I ignored it, as usual, then, as usual I reread the posts and BOOOM I decided that this time it was enough. If Ohio wanted a fight, this time I would not dodge it (even though I knew it was not a Christian attitude)!

There is something that I have noticed on this forum, again, and again and this does not regard Ohio alone but almost everyone – the tendency to glance at the new thread, or at a post, and hit the keyboard whit the first thoughts that come to mind. This results in misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Deductions should be based on strong evidence. Another problem is the matter of proving a point with appropriate quotations. The last one provided by Ohio was written by an anonymous reader of the Sword and Trowel magazine. My insistence to Ohio to check his source was well meant. We all should be more careful with what we say. The harsh words, the incorrect words, the useless words, the hurting words, the lazy words, etc.. we speak, or write today will be repeated at the judgment seat a second time. I don't want my unfruitful words to be repeated again, and I wish you all to be more careful when you are going to hit the keyboard.
I have many more things to say, but, D.V., maybe I'll write about them the next time, and if anyone notices unkind words, rebuke me. It is better to say sorry today, that to say sorry in that Day!

P.S.
I use big fonts because so it is easier to read on my monitor and on the readers' monitors, too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

My apologies to brother Ohio

I apologize to bro. Ohio for the harsh way I have treated him in my last posts. Even before posting the first one I felt guilty, even more because I knew he is older than me. It was the first time in my life I dared to speak in such a tone to someone older than me. Ohio (and the rest of you) doesn't know (because I didn't say much about myself) that we have many things in common, even our passion for the history of the Brethren! I am sure we could sit together and talk for hours and find (surprisingly for him) many, many points in common (I am not going to tell which ones).

There is something, though, that has not escaped my notice since I started reading posts on this forum: Ohio (and maybe others) has sometimes a tendency to be “looking for trouble”. I saw this in his heated exchange with amrkelly, with OBW (he made OBW really, really mad!), and his many attempts to lure me into an argument with some unnecessary and out of the blue comments on Darby and/or the Brethren (If my deduction is wrong brother Ohio, please correct me). I turned a blind eye to the first, the second, the third (I don't know exactly how many) attempt until the last one. Well actually at first I ignored it, as usual, then, as usual I reread the posts and BOOOM I decided that this time it was enough. If Ohio wanted a fight, this time I would not dodge it (even though I knew it was not a Christian attitude)!

There is something that I have noticed on this forum, again, and again and this does not regard Ohio alone but almost everyone – the tendency to glance at the new thread, or at a post, and hit the keyboard whit the first thoughts that come to mind. This results in misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Deductions should be based on strong evidence. Another problem is the matter of proving a point with appropriate quotations. The last one provided by Ohio was written by an anonymous reader of the Sword and Trowel magazine. My insistence to Ohio to check his source was well meant. We all should be more careful with what we say. The harsh words, the incorrect words, the useless words, the hurting words, the lazy words, etc.. we speak, or write today will be repeated at the judgment seat a second time. I don't want my unfruitful words to be repeated again, and I wish you all to be more careful when you are going to hit the keyboard.
I have many more things to say, but, D.V., maybe I'll write about them the next time, and if anyone notices unkind words, rebuke me. It is better to say sorry today, that to say sorry in that Day!

P.S.
I use big fonts because so it is easier to read on my monitor and on the readers' monitors, too.

OK, thanks bro. Sorry I misinterpreted your large letters as shouting. I should have remembered Paul's words, "see what large letters I have written to you," (Gal. 6.11) and considered them to really be your love to me.

Also, I will admit that I am often too brief and it appears more contentious than I intend. As my signature line indicates, I prefer brevity which makes a point, than much talk that misses the point. It is merely suitable to my character, but sometimes fails me. Even when conversing with friends, I prefer short interactive discussions, rather than long messages which bore me. Sorry for not taking more time to thoroughly read and respond.

Concerning the Brethren, I have begun to takes James' view -- how do they treat one another rather than what do they teach. This now governs my views of the Exclusive writers. The same applies to WL's materials -- i know he has said many great things, but I'm no longer interested after learning how he treated the brothers.

Regarding amrKelly, it did get heated because of the bio of Nee by Hsu. Many posters here felt his backlash. At one point he threatened my life, but in the end, thru brother awareness, we talked on the phone, apologized to each other, and were reconciled. Praise Him!

Regarding OBW, you are right that we are quite different, and have rubbed each other wrongly at times, but I have learned over time to really appreciate him. There have been times when I had little to say, and his labored posts brought out insights and viewpoints I had never even considered. I think he is the kind of brother that the more you know him, the more you love him, in contrast to some other people I have known.

Sorry again for all the misunderstandings. Thanks for addressing them.

[testallthings]

Thanks for your reply bro. Ohio. I am happy to hear that those issues (and ours) were positively solved.
Concerning the Brethren or any other subject, I try to read primary sources more than trust second hand accounts. It is like reading the Bible from cover to cover as many time as possible so not to fall prey of Its critics.

OBW: "Like I challenged Evangelical before, can you defend any of the animosity toward other Christians in the light of the command to love one another?"

I cannot nor will defend any animosity toward other Christians.
I already stated in a previous post to you:

"The bone of contention under this thread is denominationalism. Spurgeon was not against other Christians (at least in that quotations), neither am I. This was never in question when I started this thread. This is the second time you raised the issue so I just wanted to make clear my position. When I see a brother, regardless of his denominational “color”, I am happy to see a brother in Christ."

With this is the third time. I hope it is enough.


I also have to briefly reply to aron. I suggest you read again Spurgeon's words. He was blaming the systems not the Christians in them. If he was "cursing" believers in the different denominations, well he himself was under his own curse being a part of the Baptist church. How many times I read Ohio (and others) saying that despites the fact that he "hates" the LSM and/or LRC system he loves the dear saints in it?

Like Ohio I prefer short posts. Sometimes I just hint to my longer reply. This may cause misunderstandings. I might say more in other posts.

[Evangelical]

Exactly, hate the system, not the person. Although, we may "hate" the false brethren, as these cannot be considered Christians, or Christians in name only. If we say we "hate" the idolaters in the Catholic Church for example, we may be speaking of the person, but we are not speaking of brethren but of enemies. Therefore it is not "animosity toward other Christians". However, some cannot make that distinction, and think everything negative said about a denomination or even a country, is an attack on them personally. Some of these same people (and I have no one on this forum in mind, just a general observation), proclaim that a church is the people, and not the denomination...but they take offense when you say something negative about the denomination as if it were the people.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Exactly, hate the system, not the person. Although, we may "hate" the false brethren, as these cannot be considered Christians, or Christians in name only. If we say we "hate" the idolaters in the Catholic Church for example, we may be speaking of the person, but we are not speaking of brethren but of enemies. Therefore it is not "animosity toward other Christians". However, some cannot make that distinction, and think everything negative said about a denomination or even a country, is an attack on them personally. Some of these same people (and I have no one on this forum in mind, just a general observation), proclaim that a church is the people, and not the denomination...but they take offense when you say something negative about the denomination as if it were the people.

This saying, "hate the system, love the person" may sound good to you in theory, but let me assure you that hate will win, especially when constantly under the ministry of condemnation in the LC's. Also, how can you say that all idolators are enemies and not brothers or sisters?

LSM taught me to critique everything about Christians, from the way they sing, pray, worship, and serve to the teachings and principles they believe and live by. There was nothing to be esteemed about fellow Christians ouside the LC. With such an endlessly critical heart, how can anyone say they hate their system but love their brother?

It's just like me saying that I love my wife, but I hate her attitudes, I hate the way she cooks, all the things she does, the way she communicates, the things she loves, the way she dresses, the music she listens to, etc. Sure I love my wife, I just hate her system!

Love is not this way, neither does this describe the love of the New Covenant.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This saying, "hate the system, love the person" may sound good to you in theory, but let me assure you that hate will win, especially when constantly under the ministry of condemnation in the LC's. Also, how can you say that all idolators are enemies and not brothers or sisters?

LSM taught me to critique everything about Christians, from the way they sing, pray, worship, and serve to the teachings and principles they believe and live by. There was nothing to be esteemed about fellow Christians ouside the LC. With such an endlessly critical heart, how can anyone say they hate their system but love their brother?

It's just like me saying that I love my wife, but I hate her attitudes, I hate the way she cooks, all the things she does, the way she communicates, the things she loves, the way she dresses, the music she listens to, etc. Sure I love my wife, I just hate her system!

Love is not this way, neither does this describe the love of the New Covenant.

Yes, and another issue is that the "system" that the LCM hates is really mostly characteristics that do not fit into their culture. They start out by identifying major objections like locality and church names. But by the time they are done they have condemned everything from music to the coffee and donuts served after the service--or even that the service is called a "service." Horrors!

As OBW has said, so many of the accusations of the LCM about other groups are simply cultural. Why is a liturgy bad? You may not prefer it, but isn't it simply that liturgy is an easy target for religion Nazis?

The LCM has such an irrational prejudice toward any culture other than their own that they see boogy men where there are none. Veggie Tales!! Eeek!! Protect the children! Cover their eyes and ears! Burn all the DVD players! Order up marathon readings of "the ministry" to clear their brains! Hurry! Before it's too late!!

Eek!! They called their meeting a "service." How fallen, corrupt and clueless can they be?! Stay away!

It's simply mindlessness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

The bone of contention under this thread is denominationalism. Spurgeon was not against other Christians (at least in that quotations), neither am I.

Then with that in light, can you see that it is possible that denominationalism is just a windmill against which to draw your sword? It is nothing other than people. And unless you think something really bad about the leadership of certain denominations (like saying they aren't Christians), then how are you separating the Christians from the organizations in which they are found?

I am not pretending that there is nothing potentially problematic with the kind of organizations that we call denominations (though I have yet to see how that is true). And I do not disagree that the people who constitute them may not always be perfect in every sense of the word. But the fact that assemblies join together in sharing theological resources and come to joint conclusions that they hold to about certain teachings is not, in itself, wrong. It does not appear that everybody is going to arrive at a consensus on enough to simply join together as one. That may be a shame, but for everyone (that means everyone) the problem is "me." I think a certain way and on "this point" I am not sure that someone making an "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us" kind of statement about it that is much different is going to fly. Even the LRC and each independent free group would say the same thing.

The problem is not the denominations. It is the importance laid on something that is not clearly something of the core faith in the Bible. Something that is not so clearly defined because it is not what the Bible is really about. And whether you point at a whole denomination of assemblies that think one particular way, or just that single home group that does the same thing in its own unique collection of beliefs, it is not about denominations. That is a boogeyman created to make someone else simply wrong because of the denomination without addressing where you (or I) am wrong despite there being no denomination.

So rather than trying to fix the whole plethora of understanding of side issues, maybe the thing to do is to recognize that all of the others, despite disagreement in the irrelevant, are part of the same body of Christ with respect to the faith. Many are doing that. Whole denominations are clear that they are not themselves, alone, the body of Christ. They do not despise the others.

The goal is to find ourselves as one. And Paul stated the "ones" without mentioning a single side issue. It was Christ, Father, Spirit, baptism (among a few others). It was not guitars and drums, or only piano, or only ac apella. It was not a single goblet of wine and one broken wafer of bleached white four (without yeast) v little individual cups and broken saltines. It was not pre-trib v post-trib. It is not even little dark room v everyone goes straight to heaven.

Is that enough for us to drop our wall of partition and see if the same is happening on the other side? We are charged to be one. And if we are going to get this worked up over the unimportant such that we remain at odds even on the important (where we generally do agree), then may be we are our own worse enemy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then with that in light, can you see that it is possible that denominationalism is just a windmill against which to draw your sword? It is nothing other than people. And unless you think something really bad about the leadership of certain denominations (like saying they aren't Christians), then how are you separating the Christians from the organizations in which they are found?

Exactly!

Just last night I had another lengthy discussion about the evils of the clergy-laity system. So I asked him that didn't the Lord establish the apostles, and it was they who set up elders and deacons, and how the Lord gives gifts to the body, i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers? Totally amazing how LC folks can stomach "full-timers, senior coworkers, service coordinators, and responsible ones," but not the many offices which are actually in the Bible.

If a "denomination" is evil, it is not evil because of a certain name chosen to represent themselves. That's balderdash. Did Jesus ever condemn the Jewish leaders for calling themselves Pharisees, Sadducees, or Sanhedrin? No, He did not. He cared nothing for their names or who they associated with. Rather He rebuked them for their evil heart, their evil deeds, their evil lies, their hypocrisy, etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Exactly!

Just last night I had another lengthy discussion about the evils of the clergy-laity system. So I asked him that didn't the Lord establish the apostles, and it was they who set up elders and deacons, and how the Lord gives gifts to the body, i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers? Totally amazing how LC folks can stomach "full-timers, senior coworkers, service coordinators, and responsible ones," but not the many offices which are actually in the Bible.

If a "denomination" is evil, it is not evil because of a certain name chosen to represent themselves. That's balderdash. Did Jesus ever condemn the Jewish leaders for calling themselves Pharisees, Sadducees, or Sanhedrin? No, He did not. He cared nothing for their names or who they associated with. Rather He rebuked them for their evil heart, their evil deeds, their evil lies, their hypocrisy, etc.

There were offices but they weren't hierarchical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There were offices but they weren't hierarchical.

Then how can you conclude that every church office in every church in every country of the world is hierarchical -- in other words the clergy-laity system -- and then condemn them carte blanche, but then absolve all of the many offices at LSM and in all the LC's??

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If a "denomination" is evil, it is not evil because of a certain name chosen to represent themselves. That's balderdash. Did Jesus ever condemn the Jewish leaders for calling themselves Pharisees, Sadducees, or Sanhedrin? No, He did not. He cared nothing for their names or who they associated with. Rather He rebuked them for their evil heart, their evil deeds, their evil lies, their hypocrisy, etc.

Another example could be the twelve tribes of Israel. Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father's house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch. (Num 2:2).

Having different names is not the problem. It is more about how they treat each other.

It is wrong when the eye says it doesn't need the hand, or when the hand says all the members should be hands only. In this respect, "The Lord's Recovery" is not different from the other "denominations" it blames, if not worse.

[Evangelical]

It is the fact that Jesus and the 12 disciples never denominated themselves into groups of 3 and 4, which is the proof that God is against denominations. That Jesus never condemned the Pharisees and Sadduccees for naming themselves is not proof that God is OKAY with denominations.

The example doesn't really work because the Sadduccees and Pharisses were political parties of the day (there was not really separation of church and state), not "denominations of Judaism". They were a political party, a social movement, so Ohio's "proof" is born out of ignorance to the facts.

"Jesus never condemning them for calling themselves Sadducee and Pharisees" is like saying "Jesus never condemns the "Republican party from calling themselves Republicans and therefore it's okay to split up my church into denominations".

See, the example just doesn't work. Why would Jesus get involved in politics. But if James, John and Peter wanted to form their own group of 3 or 4 among the 12, I think Jesus would condemn that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The example doesn't really work because the Sadduccees and Pharisses were political parties of the day (there was not really separation of church and state), not "denominations of Judaism".

"Jesus never condemning them for calling themselves Sadducee and Pharisees" is like saying "Jesus never condemns the "Republican party from calling themselves Republicans".

See, the example just doesn't work.

So ... As long as we have separation of church and state, then you can strut around condemning all Christians for having the clergy-laity system?

Did I just hear you say that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is the fact that Jesus and the 12 disciples never denominated themselves into groups of 3 and 4, which is the proof that God is against denominations. That Jesus never condemned the Pharisees and Sadduccees for naming themselves is not proof that God is OKAY with denominations.

The example doesn't really work because the Sadduccees and Pharisses were political parties of the day (there was not really separation of church and state), not "denominations of Judaism".

"Jesus never condemning them for calling themselves Sadducee and Pharisees" is like saying "Jesus never condemns the "Republican party from calling themselves Republicans".

See, the example just doesn't work. Why would Jesus get involved in politics. But if James, John and Peter wanted to form their own group of 3 or 4 among the 12, I think Jesus would condemn that.

You have no idea whether any or all of the twelve disciples ever applied a name to a congregation they served.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... As long as we have separation of church and state, then you can strut around condemning all Christians for having the clergy-laity system?

Did I just hear you say that?

I think you cannot use biblical examples where church and state were not separated, to prove that it's okay to separate the church into denominations today.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have no idea whether any or all of the twelve disciples ever applied a name to a congregation they served.

They were all Baptists! (yeah right).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is the fact that Jesus and the 12 disciples never denominated themselves into groups of 3 and 4, which is the proof that God is against denominations. That Jesus never condemned the Pharisees and Sadduccees for naming themselves is not proof that God is OKAY with denominations.

But Jesus did send them out 2 by 2. Each one a separate pair moving through the region. Each with difference experiences.

But the logic leap that they were never denominated — which you distill down to not having a name — does not prove anything about what God thinks about it. That was a lie perpetrated by Lee. The fact is that the scriptures make no comment concerning God's opinion about what you call a denomination. So you have no basis to claim the God either likes or dislikes them. It is pure presumption to say otherwise.

It is clear that when one says they don't need the other then there is a problem. A little brother pointed that out, reminding us of Paul's words.

And despite your claims otherwise, the Sadducees and Pharisees were the religious leaders of the day and they were, by name, the separate camps of the day. And despite some pretty significant differences of opinion on certain teachings, they seemed to be getting along pretty well whenever they were referred to in the Gospels. You say that because they were also political that their names did not make them Jewish denominations. Are you really that dense? Are you so determined to dismiss every bit of evidence against your "God hates denominations" position that you will essentially claim a position that a third grader could see was faulty?

Talk about confirmation bias. But then, it doesn't fall far from the tree. Even Nee did this when trying to prove his ground of the church. He had to declare that the house churches couldn't be what they would seem to be because it would violate the one-church-per-city rule. Using the rule that needs to be proved to establish that evidence against it must be false or misunderstood.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you cannot use biblical examples where church and state were not separated, to prove that it's okay to separate the church into denominations today.

I think that you cannot use the conflagration of the religion and the state to the NT times to declare that any rule you would like can be established because we now separate church and state. Do you think we are stupid enough to believe that kind of garbage. Well, I guess it proves that when you listen to the teachings of Lee too much, the mind becomes incapable of rational thinking. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Cal]

It's pretty clear when Paul rebuked the Corinthians about their saying "I am of Paul, etc." that he was not blaming them for following a leader but rather their attitude about it, because he even rebuked those who said they were "of Christ."

What could be wrong with saying you are of Christ? Well, it's clear it's wrong to say it in a way that declares you are better than other Christians for doing so, that lifts yourself up and diminishes others.

So, if saying "I am of Christ" can be fleshly and divisive, then it must follow that saying "we don't have a name and we meet on the local ground" can be fleshly and divisive as well.

It all comes down to attitude, and I don't think there is any question that the fleshy and divisive attitude displayed by the Corinthians who said they were of Christ is the same attitude demonstrated by LCMers who say "we don't have a name and we meet on the local ground."

It certainly is the attitude demonstrated over and over by Evangelical here. So I think we can be confident that Paul would have rebuked Evangelical along with the Corinthians.

It's one thing to follow your conscience and the spiritual leaders you feel lead to follow. It's another thing to make a career out of condemning everyone who doesn't do things your way. That's Evangelical, and he is a product of the LCM attitude factory.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you cannot use biblical examples where church and state were not separated, to prove that it's okay to separate the church into denominations today.

Here's the first example off the top of my head, after shaking my head a few times at the strange comments you seem to regularly make.

Didn't the Apostle Paul preach to King Agrippa. (Acts 25-26)

Paul bared his own soul, with testimonies, sharing his life surrounding the church, before and after his salvation, to Agrippa, the head of state, while living in state housing, speaking in a state setting, and financed by the state.

Not much "separation" there.

------------------------------------------------------------------

History lesson for dear brother Evangelical. The so-called "wall of separation of church and state" was originally penned by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of our country, in opposition to contemporary Anglican Church governance under the King of England. The goal was to keep government interference out of the church. Atheists and contemporary liberal jurists have twisted its meaning to become just the opposite of the originally stated intention. It now commonly means that we must keep the church and the Bible out of the government, the schools, and society in general. The so-called "separation of church and state" was never part of our constitution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They were all Baptists! (yeah right).

They all were long awaiting the coming MOTA's Nee and Lee. (yeah right)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Jesus did send them out 2 by 2. Each one a separate pair moving through the region. Each with difference experiences.

But the logic leap that they were never denominated — which you distill down to not having a name — does not prove anything about what God thinks about it.

Jesus called James and John the "sons of thunder."

Who is to say that that name given by Jesus wasn't just the first name of the first group going out 2 by 2?

Peter, for one, would want a name too! How about the "rock-climbers?"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It all comes down to attitude, and I don't think there is any question that the fleshy and divisive attitude displayed by the Corinthians who said they were of Christ is the same attitude demonstrated by LCMers who say "we don't have a name and we meet on the local ground."

My observation too. A denomination can be more inclusive than a local church can. Say what you want about Baptists, but I never saw the exclusive attitude in a Baptist assembly that I saw in a LC/LSM assembly.

Criticize denominations about doctrine? How are the local churches exempt from doctrinal criticisms? So strong they are about "the ground doctrine", that's denominated them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's pretty clear when Paul rebuked the Corinthians about their saying "I am of Paul, etc." that he was not blaming them for following a leader but rather their attitude about it, because he even rebuked those who said they were "of Christ."

What could be wrong with saying you are of Christ? Well, it's clear it's wrong to say it in a way that declares you are better than other Christians for doing so, that lifts yourself up and diminishes others.

So, if saying "I am of Christ" can be fleshly and divisive, then it must follow that saying "we don't have a name and we meet on the local ground" can be fleshly and divisive as well.

It all comes down to attitude, and I don't think there is any question that the fleshy and divisive attitude displayed by the Corinthians who said they were of Christ is the same attitude demonstrated by LCMers who say "we don't have a name and we meet on the local ground."

It certainly is the attitude demonstrated over and over by Evangelical here. So I think we can be confident that Paul would have rebuked Evangelical along with the Corinthians.

It's one thing to follow your conscience and the spiritual leaders you feel lead to follow. It's another thing to make a career out of condemning everyone who doesn't do things your way. That's Evangelical, and he is a product of the LCM attitude factory.

And the catholic church said 'i dont care if luther splits from us as long as he has the right attitude'. 😐NOT.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And the catholic church said 'i dont care if luther splits from us as long as he has the right attitude'. 😐NOT.

Whatever that means.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whatever that means.

It means you think it's okay to be divided as per denominations, as long as we have a non-divisive attitude. But I cannot see the Catholics agreeing with you during the Reformation. They did not farewell Lu ther and the Lutheran church, saying, "fare well Luther, we are upset you have split from us but as long as you have the right non-divisive attitude we support you".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's the first example off the top of my head, after shaking my head a few times at the strange comments you seem to regularly make.

Didn't the Apostle Paul preach to King Agrippa. (Acts 25-26)

Paul bared his own soul, with testimonies, sharing his life surrounding the church, before and after his salvation, to Agrippa, the head of state, while living in state housing, speaking in a state setting, and financed by the state.

Not much "separation" there.

------------------------------------------------------------------

History lesson for dear brother Evangelical. The so-called "wall of separation of church and state" was originally penned by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of our country, in opposition to contemporary Anglican Church governance under the King of England. The goal was to keep government interference out of the church. Atheists and contemporary liberal jurists have twisted its meaning to become just the opposite of the originally stated intention. It now commonly means that we must keep the church and the Bible out of the government, the schools, and society in general. The so-called "separation of church and state" was never part of our constitution.

Are you actually arguing that separation of church and state is wrong? You seem to imply it by what you say of Paul.

But it has no relevance to this discussion. That's like saying because my shirt is made in China I am associated with the Chinese government.

If Paul ministered from a house financed by the government it does not mean the church is affiliated with the government!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It means you think it's okay to be divided as per denominations, as long as we have a non-divisive attitude.

I do not consider denominations divided. I consider you divided. You are the one who has separated yourself from everyone else and is accusing them. You are the divisive one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I do not consider denominations divided. I consider you divided. You are the one who has separated yourself from everyone else and is accusing them. You are the divisive one.

That's why my analogy of the Catholic church and Luther fits so well.
The Catholic church claims Luther is the divisive one. You are saying the same thing to us as the Catholic church said to Luther.

[testallthings]

To answer some of OBW's questions I might use an imperfect illustration. When we receive the Lord Jesus and we are born anew, our spiritual life is very pure and “simple”. We might say that we are “naked”. Then, we start to read the Bible, to have fellowship with other believers, and so on. After few years, we put on layers of clothes (doctrines, interpretations, practices, etc..) that characterize us as a particular Christian. We all have some layers, that means everyone (I am not saying that reading the Bible, to know Its teaching, to grow in knowledge, to have some practices, etc.. is wrong).

Naturally, when we meet other Christians we feel very happy. The life of Christ in us, the Spirit in us, rejoice in meeting another person that has been redeemed and has received the same Life. The problem starts when we look at the clothes they are wearing, and when they look at ours. Does he believe in eternal salvation or that salvation can be lost? Does he belong to my group or to another one? Does he have a single pastor or a group of elders? The way he practice this or that is not according to the Bible. On this point he is surely wrong! And so on.

Let me be clear. If this is the way we consider our fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, we are wrong. Our eyes should look at the Christ in them, and their eyes should look at Christ in us! Going around trying to pull off others clothes is, to say the least, inappropriate (if we are asked to explain, clarify our belief, well, then that is another story, but it matters how we do it. Condemning others should be avoided at all cost).

Then, you might ask why start a thread on denominationalism? First, this is a forum. I guess those who come here have questions. In real life, I try to avoid discussions and debates. Most of the time, they are unfruitful. And even here, I seldom put my nose in others discussions.
Second, to prove that not all who are against denominations are condemning their fellow brothers and sisters in the system. Those who think they have received more light should be more humble than those who have received less.
I am not defending anyone who uses his light as a club to “convince” others (and if I had done this, I am glad to apologize).

In my experience, though, I have observed in many cases the opposite scenario. The one, supposedly, with less light, bashes the one, supposedly, with more light.

We all belong to the Body of Christ. There is no question about it.

Some Implications of "The Body"
Firstly these implications are corrective.
There are many either false or imperfectly considered ideas about the Church, and a real revelation to the heart by the Holy Spirit of the truth will result in considerable adjustment.
If there is any real Divine mind behind the definition of the Church as the Body of Christ, and the One New Man, then the Church cannot be five things which obtain in 'Church History', or 'Ecclesiastical Polity'. It cannot be national. It cannot be international. It cannot be denominational. It cannot be interdenominational. It cannot be undenominational.
What sort of a man is this One New Man? What kind of a body is this Body of Christ? Is he a National man? Then there cannot be "one Body"! Is he an international man? Then he must be a composite man, embodying the features and characteristics of all nations. We will not carry the question further. All these designations which we have mentioned represent something, as apart from something else, to the Church. They distinguish Christians; they put some here and some there; some in this and others not in this. Even the last-named - undenominational - as a good-intentioned measure to get over sectarian barriers or distinguishing marks, but sets up another boundary, and misses the positive truth of the Body of Christ; it is at least negative.
Before we proceed let us pause a moment. We are anxious to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding. We are not saying that because many believers are in the various denominations they are not in the Body of Christ. Rather would we say that the Body of Christ comprises those who are truly joined to Himself wherever they may be found. So that no one must imagine that we suggest that in order to be in some thing called "the Body of Christ" they must leave their denomination. We should say that denominations are not an expression - in themselves - of the Body, and can be either a definite limitation or a real hindrance to the full thought of God. We recognize that there may be a fine difference between denominations and denominationalism; the one being more or less passive, the other positive. The latter would certainly be a menace to the truth of the Body of Christ. What we mean by denominationalism is the definite pursuance of denominational interests. There are many people of God in denominations who are not denominational in any positive and aggressive way, but who are rather where they are because that is where they have met the Lord. They love the Lord and desire to go on with Him.
What we are saying is not meant to be a judgment of such, nor in the spirit of criticism, but out of real love for every fellow-member of Christ. If a thing has to be judged as being less or other than the Lord's full or true thought; and if it is seen - in the light of fuller revelation and corresponding experience - to be only good as far as it goes, but not good in relation to a fuller thought of God, then those who are in it will only come under that judgment if and when they fail to have light which God has made available, or disobey light given. This, of course, will touch upon the question of whether the Cross has dealt with the natural life, and whether there is a walk in the Spirit. Let no one think therefore that we are out against Christians because they are in this or that department of the whole company of believers, nor yet that it is our aim to destroy those departments.
We are concerned with positive spiritual reality, and we say with Paul "admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto I labour, striving according to his working which worketh in me mightily" (Colossians 1:28, 29).
But we recognize and know that "perfect in Christ" is related to the Body, as the context shows - "I... fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ... for his body's sake, which is the church" etc. (verse 24).
We would never say anything which would raise an issue which is fraught with so much suffering and misunderstanding were it merely a technical question, and were we not convinced that the gain to the Lord and His people far outweighs that cost, and justifies the "afflictions". Our objective is constructive, not destructive; positive, not negative; love, not judgment or criticism.
The Stewardship of the Mystery
by T. Austin-Sparks
Chapter 3 - The Mystery
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/004593.html

[Evangelical]

We have to break the denominations down and abolish them. We cannot on the one hand say the denominationalism is wrong and on the other hand support to maintain their existence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to break the denominations down and abolish them.

We cannot on the one hand say the denominationalism is wrong and on the other hand support to maintain their existence.

Shall all the posters here join together in one accord and break down TLR?

How can we say on the one hand that LSM is wrong, and then appear to support or allow their very existence?

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!

It's time to re-plaster their walls!

[testallthings]

Evangelical,

my 2 cents to you.

It took you only 10 minutes to post a reply to my post. Since you joined this forum you have posted on average 6 times a day. Consider this facts before the Lord.

There is one thing I dislike very much.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Spurgeon also called himself a Calvinist. He said once "I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist". Spurgeon reveals himself to be an unspiritual person as he fails Paul's instructions "I follow Paul, I follow Calvin" test.

Calling Spurgeon an unspiritual person to me is too much. In traditional theology there are two schools regarding salvation: the Calvinist and the Arminian. To say that someone belongs to one or the other has nothing to do with denominations. It is a simple way to say I believe that salvation depends entirely on God or that salvation depends on God and man.

[Evangelical]

A denomination called Calvinism could have easily arisen just as the denomination Lutheran arose.
1 Corinthians 3:4 , "I follow Calvin", is carnal. Spurgeon was carnal, a "mere man" as the apostle Paul put it - in this instance, not overall as a person I am sure.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's why my analogy of the Catholic church and Luther fits so well.
The Catholic church claims Luther is the divisive one. You are saying the same thing to us as the Catholic church said to Luther.

You sound very confused to me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to break the denominations down and abolish them. We cannot on the one hand say the denominationalism is wrong and on the other hand support to maintain their existence.

Okay, Don Quixote. I'll bite. How do you propose "we" break them down and abolish them?

Hopefully your answer will be entertaining.

We don't break denominations down. I think Jesus is in all of His believers just as he has always been. People get to enjoy, at least, something of Christ in their denomination. However, the superstructure of the church that does not match the foundation simply "dies on the vine". Some people recognize that and respond...others do not.

[leastofthese]

An interesting take from Piper on denominations

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-i-m-baptist

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, Don Quixote. I'll bite. How do you propose "we" break them down and abolish them?

Hopefully your answer will be entertaining.

By leaving them and joining the Recovery.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By leaving them and joining the Recovery.

Leave a "denomination" to join the LSM denomination or The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of Witness Lee or the Local Church that meets the purest definition of denomination but doesn't call itself as such so it must be the only true church in "insert City name here".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By leaving them and joining the Recovery.

Great place for drug and alcohol rehab?

That's the first comment I would hear from others who heard of the "recovery" version.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By leaving them and joining the Recovery.

What is "the Recovery," and how does one "join"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to break the denominations down and abolish them. We cannot on the one hand say the denominationalism is wrong and on the other hand support to maintain their existence.

Evangelical's first sentence reminds me of Marx vis-a-vis Capitalism, in which Marx pointed out the many flaws, and proposed his "everybody owns everything" alternative. One worker's paradise, coming right up.

Or Pol Pot replacing Prince Sihanouk, who was admittedly corrupt and a poor ruler. But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field.

And Witness Lee with his Great Leap Forward-esque New Moves every few years was more similar than you'd think, if you look at it. Glorious church life; just don't look too deeply, and whatever you do, don't ask any questions!

Originally Posted by leastofthese

An interesting take from Piper on denominations

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-i-m-baptist

Here's a quote by Piper that is salient:

"So, it seems to me that all of us who are Christians need to decide how we will do our part to minimize the lamentable divisions and not be paralyzed or utopian in our view of the inevitability of divisions until Jesus comes back. It seems to me that top-down efforts at global unity inevitably lay claim to powers that belong only to Jesus. And I think you can see that in the Roman Catholic Church."

I like how Piper says, "It seems to me. . " and "I think" versus presuming one final truth for all, based on his logic and a few verses.

And another reason for being in a "Baptist" church is that at least you know, more or less, what you're getting doctrinally. These "Oh, we're just Christians" folks will suck you in, and then you find out about the Deputy God, and all the hidden extras. If you go to the Baptist church you probably won't find someone saying, "The age of the word is over; it's now the age of the Spirit", as they explain away plain scripture, laying groundwork for the "Lord Changshou" and "Three Grades of Servant" and "Eastern Lightning" heresies. The Baptists and Lutherans, for all their lacks, at least have tried to stay (mostly) in the rudiments of the faith. How many cults have the Baptists spawned? Probably fewer than the LC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a quote by Piper that is salient:

"So, it seems to me that all of us who are Christians need to decide how we will do our part to minimize the lamentable divisions and not be paralyzed or utopian in our view of the inevitability of divisions until Jesus comes back. It seems to me that top-down efforts at global unity inevitably lay claim to powers that belong only to Jesus. And I think you can see that in the Roman Catholic Church."

I like how Piper says, "It seems to me. . " and "I think" versus presuming one final truth for all, based on his logic and a few verses.

And another reason for being in a "Baptist" church is that at least you know, more or less, what you're getting doctrinally. These "Oh, we're just Christians" folks will suck you in, and then you find out about the Deputy God, and all the hidden extras.

As I was departing the program, one brother I respected used this word "extras" when describing the LC system. His description was quite helpful to me and undeniable. Oh we claimed to be "just Christians," but that was just hiding our connections to LSM. We claimed to adhere only to scripture, but we had so much more, lots of which we had to hide from the "new" ones.

I also caught Piper's comment which you quoted, especially the "and not be paralyzed or utopian in our view." Nee and Lee successfully employed that dynamic to entice Christians into their fold. Oftentimes the unrealistic goals of "perfection" in a utopian "normal" churchlife are the biggest enemy to a healthy churchlife. Think about how much the daily condemnation upon the rest of the body of Christ damaged us. LC oneness may appear to be more scriptural, but appearances were deceiving, and it took time to see thru the appearances.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think about how much the daily condemnation upon the rest of the body of Christ damaged us. .

This quote can hardly be over-stressed. Every minister but WN and WL were held as grossly deficient. Every group but those who abjectly followed these "rich ministries" was called too poor.

Where's the open-ness, the humility, the thinking others better than oneself? What a poisonous pattern, clearly seen in the LC speakings.

The exclusivity and self-selection, thought to bring purity from "fallen Christianity", just brought peculiar, myopic subjectivity. Arguably worse than in many denominations, or even "denominationism", whatever that may be.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Or Pol Pot replacing Prince Sihanouk, who was admittedly corrupt and a poor ruler. But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field..

Sorry; Lon Nol replaced Sihanouk, and was eventually ousted when the Khmer Rouge came to power. At least get the facts straight, right? But the pattern holds. Group B says Group A is corrupt, and they are right. But what Group B doesn't say, is they're twice as bad.

So it was with Darbyism and Leeism replacing denominationism. Give me a Baptist church; at least the good news is preserved there. Lee said he had tens of millions of affiliated Christians in mainland China in the mid 1990s. Ten years later they were gone. The home-brewed "high peak truths", thrust upon an ignorant populace, produced confusion and turmoil. I daresay the "low gospel" of the Baptists might have been more prudent.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To answer some of OBW's questions I might use an imperfect illustration. . . .

You bring up some interesting questions. But you seem to think that the questions will go away if there are no denominations. Whether I might ask about eternal salvation or if salvation can be lost will be a question for many no matter whether there are denominations that tend one way or the other.

But when you get down to "does one belong to my group or another group?" the question is often not asked. Or if it is it is so that we can join in fellowship and be willful about avoiding the minor issues on which we might not agree. Most knowledgeable Christians understand that there are few things that are believed and followed that cannot be found in the Bible. There are differences because so many things that we have come to think there might be a "right way" that is more than irrelevant while well-educated, scholarly Christians with a desire to further the growth of the people in their flock do not arrive at the same answer. You might propose a new Jerusalem counsel to go over some of these. Or to work through them one-by-one. But who will go/attend? Whose voices will be heard?

And is it really that important that we figure all of these out? It is going to take enough assemblies to house all of the people anyway. If certain ones join together to avoid the potential controversies, why is anyone creating a complaint? So they can argue that the groupings are somehow bad? For what purpose?

If the true interaction of the people from all groups is open, and the groups do not suppose that the others are evil or unspiritual for not being like themselves, then what has gone wrong? They all agree that their unity is in Christ — the only source of unity. Not doctrines or creeds.

I not that even the TAS quote is not very persuasive. He conjures up that there is no problem with the people. They don't need to leave denominations to be part of the body of Christ. We can agree that "denominations are not and expression — in themselves — of the Body. . ." But then neither are assemblies. Assemblies are not simply pure and holy in all ways. They are where the Christians meet. And where others come to learn about Christ and consider belief. It is where the diligent shepherd the flock, and wolves come and plunder and some try to teach doctrines of demons. It is where the weak hold to what they have while others consider that they have everything they need and have no lack.

TAS also says that denominations "can be either a definite limitation or a real hindrance to the full thought of God." But are these the sum total of the possibilities? Are they only "bad and worse"? Or (no matter how highly you may think of TAS) is he just as prone to thinking that his view of things is better and therefore presume only benign problems (at best) out of denominations. So we have a willful banding to be at least somewhat of a single mind on things (like denominations, including the LRC) or we have none and pick-and-choose our beliefs from the smorgasbord of ideas and instead have a smorgasbord of differences.

If we really do not bring those up when fellowshipping one-on-one or in broader ways between groups, then it really doesn't matter whether there are some number that start from an agreed position or none that fully agree at all. And despite some unsupportable claim of automatic unity for naming you group correctly, it doesn't cure anything either.

So we either have nobody really agreeing on anything, or some agreeing on some things, but nobody on everything.

TAS was not some major thinker of the "right way." He was a somewhat obscure thinker of a way of thinking that made everything independent. And therefore not necessarily in agreement. But, admittedly, with a hope that what was not agreed would not be insurmountable. But he mostly spoke to separate groups.

Or we claim that an unseeable formula derived by Nee somehow makes everyone that follows the formula suddenly agree on everything. But that doesn't happen because of the formula. It happens because the "theologians" of that group dictate their core and peripheral beliefs. Get out of line and you will be shown the door. They are not one with everyone who names their group like they do. They are only one with those that agree with them. And they have a core group that is not part of the local assembly that directs them (just like a denomination).

And so on.

The problem is that a story does not theology make. And TAS is not the end-all of preachers who have danced around this issue with nary a verse that supports the points made. And who makes false dichotomies of the range of possibilities without explanation.

In other words, for the length of the post, I do not see how it actually questions my notion that there is nothing I can find that makes denominations simply wrong. You can say that you have done the same. But the difference is that you are suggesting that there is a "the way" answer. If there is, there needs to be actual evidence. Actual verses. Not just analogies and rhetoric.

I am saying that there is no definable "truth" that makes your claim so. You are the one who must establish it to be so. And so far I do not see it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Sorry; Lon Nol replaced Sihanouk, and was eventually ousted when the Khmer Rouge came to power. At least get the facts straight, right? But the pattern holds. Group B says Group A is corrupt, and they are right. But what Group B doesn't say, is they're twice as bad.

So it was with Darbyism and Leeism replacing denominationism. Give me a Baptist church; at least the good news is preserved there. Lee said he had tens of millions of affiliated Christians in mainland China in the mid 1990s. Ten years later they were gone. The home-brewed "high peak truths", thrust upon an ignorant populace, produced confusion and turmoil. I daresay the "low gospel" of the Baptists might have been more prudent.

You mean like westboro baptist or some others i can think of?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You mean like westboro baptist or some others i can think of?

Only a troll would constantly come up with the one bad apple. You have to really be an idiot to think that Westboro is representative of the vast majority of any denomination or other group of churches. You sidekick constantly denies that there is fear involved. But it is clear that you want to imply that the singular worst possible example of a supposed church is representative of anyone other than the few that darken its doors and a broad scattering of individuals that can't find anyone else of like mind to meet with. Hardly a reasonable reply.

Your reputation as simply interjecting nonsense and bad will really says a lot about your spiritual training. (None discernible)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Only a troll would constantly come up with the one bad apple. You have to really be an idiot to think that Westboro is representative of the vast majority of any denomination or other group of churches. You sidekick constantly denies that there is fear involved. But it is clear that you want to imply that the singular worst possible example of a supposed church is representative of anyone other than the few that darken its doors and a broad scattering of individuals that can't find anyone else of like mind to meet with. Hardly a reasonable reply.

Your reputation as simply interjecting nonsense and bad will really says a lot about your spiritual training. (None discernible)

You take issue with me referencing Westboro baptist, but you don't say anything about Aron comparing the Recovery to Marx and Pol Pot (a mass murderer)- what Aron said seems like interjecting nonsense to me, and also reveals your bias.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You take issue with me referencing Westboro baptist, but you don't say anything about Aron comparing the Recovery to Marx and Pol Pot (a mass murderer)- what Aron said seems like interjecting nonsense to me, and also reveals your bias.

While I would not agree with the characterization, your comparison was worse. Aron's was intended to make a comparison of someone bad being driven out by someone worse as they herald the bad of the old group. Using such an extreme group as a comparison is a problem because it tends to suggest that the thing it is put up against is just as severe.

I would agree that it is not. But the type of comparison is arguably valid.

But you didn't do what aron did (or you are not smart enough to know that you didn't). When the statement was to join with an evangelical group, like almost any Baptist group, to dig out the example of one that would have its claim to the name "Baptist" removed years ago if the Baptists were actually a denomination as you so like to gripe at. But they are not. They are an association by choice of the assembly, not the group. So they are sort of stuck with Westboro.

Therefore your example is not "like what aron did." It is markedly different, without any actual, metaphorical, or other truthful comparison.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I would not agree with the characterization, your comparison was worse. Aron's was intended to make a comparison of someone bad being driven out by someone worse as they herald the bad of the old group. Using such an extreme group as a comparison is a problem because it tends to suggest that the thing it is put up against is just as severe.

I would agree that it is not. But the type of comparison is arguably valid.

But you didn't do what aron did (or you are not smart enough to know that you didn't). When the statement was to join with an evangelical group, like almost any Baptist group, to dig out the example of one that would have its claim to the name "Baptist" removed years ago if the Baptists were actually a denomination as you so like to gripe at. But they are not. They are an association by choice of the assembly, not the group. So they are sort of stuck with Westboro.

Therefore your example is not "like what aron did." It is markedly different, without any actual, metaphorical, or other truthful comparison.

To say that my comparison (which was not actually a comparison, but pointing out an exception) is worse than Aron's comparison of the Recover to Pol Pot is not rational, because Pol Pot was a mass murderer, worse than Hitler, and Westboro baptist is an example of a baptist church to avoid.

A rational person would consider comparison to a mass murder to be far worse than a single example of a controlling hateful church.

Your statement "your comparison was worse", shows you do not have a rational mind that can realize that a mass murderer killing millions of people is worse than Westboro baptist. Even if I had said that all baptist churches are like Westboro (which I did not, and know they are not), it would be better comparison than comparing a "Local Church denomination" to a mass murderer.

Now if Aron had compared the Recovery to Hitler or the Nazis I am sure it would touch the emotions of many here. If he wrote that in a newspaper as a journalist he probably would lose his job.

Now Pol Pot was many times worse than Hitler, so Aron was comparing the Recovery to someone worse than Hitler. A comparison to Pol Pot is far worse than referencing one example of a Baptist church that is one that we probably should not attend. In fact it is probably worse than anything we say about denominations being degraded and fallen, which itself was nothing worse than Spurgeon said about denominations. We would never compare them to a mass murderer.

Your post contains some factual inaccuracies about my post. Firstly, I did not really make a comparison as you say because I made reference to one baptist church one may not like to join. I never said all baptists are like Westboro baptist because it is common knowledge that they are not. Aron could have said "give me a good baptist church", to rule out Westboro, not "give me a baptist church", as if to imply that all baptist churches are great churches to join. So my reference to Westboro was to highlight that just joining a baptist because they are baptist does not guarantee anything.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To say that my comparison (which was not actually a comparison, but pointing out an exception) is worse than Aron's comparison of the Recover to Pol Pot is not rational, because Pol Pot was a mass murderer, worse than Hitler, and Westboro baptist is an example of a baptist church to avoid.

You base your opinion on the extreme situation of the example provided.

It was probably a poor analogy for its purpose because of its tendency to ring the ad Hitlerium bell (mention Hitler and the discussion is destroyed). But the purpose of the comparison is very valid. It was not the extreme of either that makes it accurate, but the change on a downward trend. Except for the viewpoint of the reader, it could have been like saying from Bush to Obama (for a Republican) or Obama to Trump (for a Democrat). There are many examples, but like the two I provide, not all agree on the direction of the trend. And many of them are not known by most people. So the appeal of a better-know example is understood.

While not irrelevant, the point aron made was not to state that anyone was like Pol Pot, but to indicate a clear comparison/trend of bad to worse with the worse pointing at the bad of the former.

Your example was to imply that Baptists churches are effectively like Westboro. aron did not say the "Recovery" is like Pol Pot other than to suggest that it was part of a downward trend in terms of the very things that it trumpets as its foundational traits. Primarily unity and stance for oneness. Lots of talk. Less reality of it than what they came from.

It could be that you really just don't understand how different the two are, or you are willful in it and know how wrong it is. In the first, it establishes that you are out of your depth. Playing Chess with a Checkers mentality. Alternately you are just wandering through the forum dropping nonsense cloaked in the terminology of intelligence to befuddle those who have not had a chance to think about it yet.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your example was to imply that Baptists churches are effectively like Westboro.

Well, no, because if we examine my statement more closely (emphasis mine):

You mean like westboro baptist or some others i can think of?

I was clearly referring to westboro or some others. How can you then say I implied "all baptist churches are like westboro". You can't understand basic English it would seem. I said nothing of the sort, because I think it is common knowledge, even in the Recovery, that there are good baptist churches and bad ones. My post was clearly in reference to the westboro and some other churches that use the Baptist name.

I was balancing Arons post where he did not put any qualifiers on the word Baptist e.g. "find me a good Baptist church". He only said:

Give me a Baptist church; at least the good news is preserved there.

Some new comers to this forum are seeking a church and we would not want them to think that all baptist churches are good just because they are baptist.

Originally Posted by OBW

While not irrelevant, the point aron made was not to state that anyone was like Pol Pot, but to indicate a clear comparison/trend of bad to worse with the worse pointing at the bad of the former.

Originally Posted by OBW

aron did not say the "Recovery" is like Pol Pot other than to suggest that it was part of a downward trend in terms of the very things that it trumpets as its foundational traits. Primarily unity and stance for oneness. Lots of talk. Less reality of it than what they came from.

I think some examples like Pol Pot or Hitler are so extreme that it does not matter whether one meant it as a trend or not.

In the following statement, Aron said the Recovery was actually a charnel house, a killing field. He did not even use the work "like" or "heading in the direction of" to make a comparative or metaphorical statement.
He said:

Or Pol Pot replacing Prince Sihanouk, who was admittedly corrupt and a poor ruler. But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field.


When he said Watchman Nee's statements reminded him of Marx or Pol Pot, that was essentially saying that Watchman Nee is like Marx or Pol Pot.

Originally Posted by OBW

It could be that you really just don't understand how different the two are, or you are willful in it and know how wrong it is. In the first, it establishes that you are out of your depth. Playing Chess with a Checkers mentality. Alternately you are just wandering through the forum dropping nonsense cloaked in the terminology of intelligence to befuddle those who have not had a chance to think about it yet.

It's time for an English comprehension lesson. You don't seem to understand the difference between these statements:

"like westboro baptist or some others" - this means some baptist churches, not all (as you are saying).

"But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field." - this is not a statement which implies a trend. This is a blatant comparison of the Recovery with a mass murderer. But even to say that the trend of the Recovery is towards Pol Pot, is bad enough!

I don't think my statement that some baptist churches are like westboro is nonsense at all. That would be useful information to know for a newcomer who does not know much about baptist churches and how vastly different they can be.

However I think Arons statement of saying the Recovery is actually a killing field is far worse and utter nonsense.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"like westboro baptist or some others" - this means some baptist churches, not all (as you are saying).

This implies Westboro as the name among which some others might be added. You didn't suggest "First Baptist Dallas" or "Cornerstone Church" (formerly known as "First Baptist Coppell." You went to the "Hitler" of churches. Of any denomination.

And you must have missed that I agreed that using a name like Pol Pot was pretty much like saying "Hitler." It tends to destroy the message. I do agree. And if it had been my post, it would have been something less extreme.

But that does not mean that there are no parallels. Maybe Mao would have been better. Might not like him, but he was not like those others.

Marx was not ever a power. He just used tricks to confuse his readers into accepting that there was some horrible problem and that Communism/Socialism was going to cure it.

My observation is that Nee and Lee were both pretty full of tricks like that. Many tricks of oratory (eventually put to writing). I have commented on the common tricks that both used. Just make a few correct statements concerning irrelevant verses then make an erroneous statement about the one you want to deal with and too many people are just following along without thinking it through. And when spoken, it was worse because you didn't have the time to stop, look at it, and think about it. In writing, you could eventually see it. But too often you will fail to correct yourself once you learn something like that incorrectly. (This has been shown to be true in around 50% of people who learn something incorrectly, especially due to misuse of words in the source of the original learning.)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field." - this is not a statement which implies a trend. This is a blatant comparison of the Recovery with a mass murderer. But even to say that the trend of the Recovery is towards Pol Pot, is bad enough!

No matter how bad you think it is to use the Pol Pot thing, it is pointless if you do not sate the issue. The regime before Pol Pot was poor (to say the least). And Pol Pot pointed to that as his reasons for taking over. But he was worse. He claimed "new and improved" in his own way, but it was actually the opposite. It is a "trend." It is a movement in a down-hill direction. The point is "bad to worse" not "Pol Pot."

Despite the admitted error in aron's use of such an extreme example, you are making a strawman out of this. aron did not liken the Recover yto Pol Pot, but as a step further in error relative to what was before — like Pol Pot was to what was before him.

Your little ruse it exposed. The strawman cometh. Purveying his wares of false innuendos and outright lies. Setting up a scarecrow so he can beat it up.

But you have yet to beat on the point that aron made. It stands strong, unhindered by your diversions.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This implies Westboro as the name among which some others might be added. You didn't suggest "First Baptist Dallas" or "Cornerstone Church" (formerly known as "First Baptist Coppell." You went to the "Hitler" of churches. Of any denomination.

If my point is to say that there are some bad Baptist churches one should probably not attend, why would I use an example of a not so bad one like First Baptist Dallas?

What is wrong with First Baptist Dallas that I would use it as an example of a baptist church to avoid?

Aron named some cults in China, so my post also addressed this question of his:

"How many cults have the Baptists spawned? "

Obviously I would use Westboro baptist as an example of a Baptist spawned cult, and not First Baptist Dallas.

These are the main reasons I chose to use Westboro. The other reason is that most people probably have heard of it and could identify it as a cult. But I think First Baptist Dallas etc are not identified as cults.

Originally Posted by OBW

And you must have missed that I agreed that using a name like Pol Pot was pretty much like saying "Hitler." It tends to destroy the message. I do agree. And if it had been my post, it would have been something less extreme.

But that does not mean that there are no parallels. Maybe Mao would have been better. Might not like him, but he was not like those others.

Marx was not ever a power. He just used tricks to confuse his readers into accepting that there was some horrible problem and that Communism/Socialism was going to cure it.

My observation is that Nee and Lee were both pretty full of tricks like that. Many tricks of oratory (eventually put to writing). I have commented on the common tricks that both used. Just make a few correct statements concerning irrelevant verses then make an erroneous statement about the one you want to deal with and too many people are just following along without thinking it through. And when spoken, it was worse because you didn't have the time to stop, look at it, and think about it. In writing, you could eventually see it. But too often you will fail to correct yourself once you learn something like that incorrectly. (This has been shown to be true in around 50% of people who learn something incorrectly, especially due to misuse of words in the source of the original learning.)


No matter how bad you think it is to use the Pol Pot thing, it is pointless if you do not sate the issue. The regime before Pol Pot was poor (to say the least). And Pol Pot pointed to that as his reasons for taking over. But he was worse. He claimed "new and improved" in his own way, but it was actually the opposite. It is a "trend." It is a movement in a down-hill direction. The point is "bad to worse" not "Pol Pot."

Mao does not help - is there some reference that can be used that does not refer to mass murder? Maybe a biblical figure?

Originally Posted by OBW

Despite the admitted error in aron's use of such an extreme example, you are making a strawman out of this. aron did not liken the Recover yto Pol Pot, but as a step further in error relative to what was before — like Pol Pot was to what was before him.

Your little ruse it exposed. The strawman cometh. Purveying his wares of false innuendos and outright lies. Setting up a scarecrow so he can beat it up.

But you have yet to beat on the point that aron made. It stands strong, unhindered by your diversions.

These are possibly your strawmans:

1) claiming that I implied that all baptist churches are like Westboro. The words I used clearly show that I was referring only to "Westboro and some others". You should know by now that if I truly did think that all baptist churches were like Westboro, I would not be shy to say it. But you couldn't resist this opportunity to create the strawman argument to misleadingly claim that I said all baptist churches are like Westboro.


2) The notion of a downward trend or relative step is possibly a strawman on your part to soften what Aron said. When he used the words "was actually" - I missed the part about a downward trend or relative step.

Aron did not use words like trend, step, toward, like, "similar to", etc. These are all your words, and therefore your strawmans.

The only word Aron did use is the word "replace" as in

"Or Pol Pot replacing Prince Sihanouk, who was admittedly corrupt and a poor ruler. But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field."

This is in reference to Watchman Nee's view that denominations should be brought down - that was my point that he was addressing. Watchman Nee did not trend towards "bringing denominations down", that has always been the view. Neither does it say that the "new and improved" was "stepping towards" a "killing field". It says it "was actually" that.

So Aron's word "replacing" did not give me that impression of Watchman Nee's views "trending towards" "mass murder".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron named some cults in China, so my post also addressed this question of his:

"How many cults have the Baptists spawned? "

Obviously I would use Westboro baptist as an example of a Baptist spawned cult, and not First Baptist Dallas.

An important question triggered by Eastern Lightning is: why the surge of cults from Christianity in recent years?

‪In July of 2009, the author found 14 officially named cults posted on the Chinese government's website. These include the Shouters (呼喊派), the Disciple Society (门徒会), the Lingling Sect (灵灵教), All Sphere Church (全范围教会), Lord God Sect (主神教), New Testament Church (新约教会), Guanyin Method (观音法门), Anointed King (被立王), the Unification Church (统一教), Three Grades of Servants (三班仆人派), True Buddha School (灵仙真佛宗), Children of the Heavenly Father (天父的儿女), Dami Mission (达米宣教会), and World Elijah Gospel Mission Society (世界以利亚福音宣教会). Of the 14 cults named, 12 of them fly under the banner of Christianity. Three of the groups (the Unification Church, the Dami Mission Society, and the World Elijah Gospel Mission Society) are from South Korea. The New Testament Church has its roots in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The remaining eight cults are all homegrown Mainland Chinese cults. It is true that the Shouters arrived by way of Witness Lee (李常受) from America; however, Lee himself was sent out of the country by Watchman Nee (聚会处), leader of the Little Flock churches on the eve of the Communist Liberation. Therefore, at its root the Shouters are a homegrown group.

So it is understandable why people raise the question, why do these cults fly under the banner of Christianity? And, why do the majority of cults that label themselves Christian come from Mainland China? Does it have something to do with the popularization of Christianity or with folk Christianity?

‪Another noteworthy phenomenon is that, among the eight homegrown cults, aside from the Shouters, there are two additional cults that derive from the Shouters: the Lord God Sect and the Anointed King. In addition, the All Sphere Church (also known as the Criers (哭派) or Born Again Criers (哭重生派)), the Disciple Society, and Three Grades of Servants all certainly have a connection with the Shouters. If this is true, six of the eight homegrown cults belong to or are associated with the Shouters, which accounts for more than half of those cults. Moreover, there are several cults that were not included among the 14 cults but are viewed as heretical sects. The Changshou Sect (常受教), the Mainland China Administrative Deacon Station (中华大陆行政执事站), and Eastern Lightning were all originally were born out of the Shouters.

‪Because the Shouter's origins lie in the Little Flock church (聚会处), some have suggested that there is some kind of intrinsic link between the cults produced by Christianity and Little Flock.

I think it's worth looking at how much craziness the LSM move into China spawned. Every group seems to have its lunatic fringe, baptists included. LSM seems to have produced little except lunatic fringe. Thus my comparison.

http://www.chinasource.org/resource-...anity-in-china

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I think it's worth looking at how much craziness the LSM move into China spawned. Every group seems to have its lunatic fringe, baptists included. LSM seems to have produced little except lunatic fringe. Thus my comparison.

http://www.chinasource.org/resource-...anity-in-china

Aron,

You did not read this part which says to me that Lee/LSM is not responsible:

however, Lee himself was sent out of the country by Watchman Nee (聚会处), leader of the Little Flock churches on the eve of the Communist Liberation. Therefore, at its root the Shouters are a homegrown group.

I would doubt any website that starts off by saying "Of the most active cults identified by the Chinese government". If the Chinese government is your source then it raises all sorts of questions about the credibility of your comparisons and assessments.

There are a number of false assumptions in your statement and the website you referenced does not support what you are claiming, that the LSM spawned all these cult groups. I think the reason for so many cults is because of cultural reasons like this one:

"Christianity becomes a substitute for folk religion, or just another folk religion"

and the government, as the article says:

In addition, government suppression of house churches forces members to hide, much like "secret societies." Their lack of space for communication and interaction means that they can easily become breeding grounds for heresies..

You have mentioned nothing like this in your post, laying the blame squarely on LSM itself, which is ludicrous. Much more likely that it is due to lack of access to educational material, even that provided by LSM. Nothing in the LSM literature endorses what these cults believe, they do in fact, say the opposite. Maybe if these house churches in China had the access to Witness Lee materials that we have in the West, they would be more educated and know that what they believe about certain things is wrong.

So we have a situation where the "genuine church" supposedly, wants the government to help them fight cults:

"In a way, they most want the government to help them fight against cults. "


The article itself says nothing about LSM. If LSM itself was a key player that spawned all these groups, this article would say so. Because it is a cultural thing then I doubt that it has much to do with an American based publishing house.

The ones mentioned are not products of the LSM. The site you quoted mentions a number of Chinese homegrown Christian groups so "LSM move into China" did not "spawn craziness". It was already there to begin with or came about because of home grown reasons.

While it is easy to point the finger at countries like China for having cults, we must remember it is the most populous country in the world, so that is to be expected.
By comparison, I could easily say that the USA has spawned many cults in the world and how they hide behind the US Constitution. In particular, Mormonism is one of the few homegrown religions in the United States, one that emerged out of the religious fervor of the early nineteenth century. I could easily say that American Protestantism spawned the Mormon church and other racially-motivated cults that is today a size of about 15 million people. But I won't do that because then I would be making the same sort of outrageous claims you are making about the LSM.

[aron]

Evangelical, actually I have made the point here, repeatedly, that Protestantism with its "me and my Bible" too easily becomes "me and my vision" and becomes "me and those I've duped". And I put Witness Lee (LC) and Joseph Smith (LDS) together, at least somewhat in this regard.

Regarding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, my reference to the killing fields was ill-chosen and I apologize. I meant spiritually-speaking, of course, but that likely didn't come across.

So I'll leave it with the other comparison: phenomenon B (Marxism) bases itself on a critique of the ills of phenomenon A (Capitalism) which preceded it. But its proposed solution is worse, even if the critique had some merit. Such is Leeism v/v denominationism.

I know you'll reply something like, "Neither denominationism nor Leeism but Christ." But the Christ I met in the LC bore little resemblance to the Christ seen in the NT. Christ's closest confidant and chief spokesman summarized His ministry by saying, "He went around doing good." The LC would rather pore over the home-made theology of its founder. "But doctors and lawyers do good", you might reply. Then, why believe at all? Just be a lawyer and get your ticket punched.

And Lee's home-brewed theology is directly responsible for the craziness that followed behind it. Repetetive shouting (thus the name), paranoia, secrecy, control issues, and simplistic slogans foisted upon an ignorant and superstitious populace. At one point Lee publicly claimed 20 million shouters. Then, 'pouf' - all gone.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical, actually I have made the point here, repeatedly, that Protestantism with its "me and my Bible" too easily becomes "me and my vision" and becomes "me and those I've duped". And I put Witness Lee (LC) and Joseph Smith (LDS) together, at least somewhat in this regard.

Regarding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, my reference to the killing fields was ill-chosen and I apologize. I meant spiritually-speaking, of course, but that likely didn't come across.

So I'll leave it with the other comparison: phenomenon B (Marxism) bases itself on a critique of the ills of phenomenon A (Capitalism) which preceded it. But its proposed solution is worse, even if the critique had some merit. Such is Leeism v/v denominationism.

I know you'll reply something like, "Neither denominationism nor Leeism but Christ." But the Christ I met in the LC bore little resemblance to the Christ seen in the NT. Christ's closest confidant and chief spokesman summarized His ministry by saying, "He went around doing good." The LC would rather pore over the home-made theology of its founder. "But doctors and lawyers do good", you might reply. Then, why believe at all? Just be a lawyer and get your ticket punched.

And Lee's home-brewed theology is directly responsible for the craziness that followed behind it. Repetetive shouting (thus the name), paranoia, secrecy, control issues, and simplistic slogans foisted upon an ignorant and superstitious populace. At one point Lee publicly claimed 20 million shouters. Then, 'pouf' - all gone.

I dont believe that theology is directly or solely responsible for cults.

The fact that the LSM did not result in a cult explosion in the US suggests to me that it is to do with the environment not the teaching.

I think China is having its own religious awakening akin to 19th century America that resulted in so many aberrant groups starting like Morminism.

I think we have to consider all these factors and not lay blame at a single publishing house.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think we have to consider all these factors and not lay blame at a single publishing house.

You still believe that lie that LSM is just a publishing house?

Since where do publishing houses get the authority to "train" elders?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You still believe that lie that LSM is just a publishing house?

Since where do publishing houses get the authority to "train" elders?

So, Aron said the "LSM spawned" cults in China.

I mentioned publishing because I thought that is what Aron was saying that these cults are using LSM published material either online or hard copy.

But if Aron means that LSM is training elders and sending them to China and starting these cults, that is a different thing!

Maybe Aron or even yourself if you know, could explain exactly what "LSM spawning cults" actually means.

[testallthings]

To OBW,

so far I am being concerned about one important point. "We are anxious to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding. We are not saying that because many believers are in the various denominations they are not in the Body of Christ."(TAS).

Regarding one of your recurrent question about different teachings and "necessity" of different groups while humanly speaking is quite logical from the point Scriptural point of view doesn't have support.

Rom 14:1 Now him that is weak in the faith receive, not to the determining of questions of reasoning.
Rom 14:2 One man is assured that he may eat all things; but the weak eats herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eats make little of him that eats not; and let not him that eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art *thou* that judgest the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls. And he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day alike . Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord. And he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that does not eat, it is to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. (Darby)


Paul did not suggest that those who didn't eat meat might form a separate group from those who ate meat. He didn't tell those who observed the Sabbath to form a separate meeting from those who considered all the days the same. And we could add and so on for the many "minor" differences between believers.

In which situation do you think the Lord and His Cross would have more chance to operate?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Paul did not suggest that those who didn't eat meat might form a separate group from those who ate meat. He didn't tell those who observed the Sabbath to form a separate meeting from those who considered all the days the same. And we could add and so on for the many "minor" differences between believers.
[/SIZE]

I am just curious, did Paul ever tell someone to leave the existing believer group and form a separate group for whatever reason?

[aron]

9

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But if Aron means that LSM is training elders and sending them to China and starting these cults, that is a different thing!

Maybe Aron or even yourself if you know, could explain exactly what "LSM spawning cults" actually means.

The literature showed LSM operatives going hard into China in the '80s after that country 'opened' to the west. In the mid-'90s WL publicly claimed 15 to 20 million shouters affiliated with his ministry. A number of cults came out of the same shouters; not merely cults as defined by PRC government but as defined by Christian consensus (Lord Changshou sect, EL, etc).

Am I reading too much causality between the lines here? Perhaps. But when I look at their operations, I see the same hallmarks of WL and the LSM, just like the DYL spin-off in Brasil: secrecy, paranoia, centralised control, isolationism, cheap sloganeering.

Or do we think Baptists would have gone into China proclaiming, "The age of the word is over; it's the age of the spirit"? I saw videos smuggled out where they repetitively shouted WL's theological statements. "God became man to make man God/Untraceable economy" - What happens when the meeting's focus turns from the word of God, to whatever the Ascended Master cooked up today?

This is of course a subjective assessment. It may be as Chris Wilde said, that LSM had nothing to do with the chaos on the mainland ten years after WL passed.

[aron]

Paul didn't suggest that those who didn't eat meat might form a separate group from those who ate meat. He didn't tell those who observed the Sabbath to form a separate meeting from those who considered all the days the same. And we could add and so on for the many "minor" differences between believers.

In which situation do you think the Lord and His Cross would have more chance to operate?

I know the question was addessed to OBW, but it seems to me that a group formed on the basis of all other groups but itself being illigitimate is worse than a group formed on the basis of whether to eat meat or observe the Sabbath (and the VAST majority of groups form today for neither, but to proclaim the gospel, encourage, and edify).

Sometime, google the words 'true church' and see how many folks have done this, saying that all but them are hopeless and must be avoided. Most of them look quite odd, even at a cursory glance. Isolationism to further one's own notions of 'purity' results in peculiarity, not holiness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am just curious, did Paul ever tell someone to leave the existing believer group and form a separate group for whatever reason?

Could we not draw reasonable conclusions, however, after the Acts 15 accord was never upheld and the Galatians apparently were lost to the Judaizers?

The fact that Paul, in the city of Corinth, forsook the Jews and "from now on went to the Gentiles," (Acts 18.6) is telling. It was quite a strong message, both then and throughout history, to forsake those who reject the truth of the Gospel. It seems that every city Paul went to had opposition from the Jews, bringing some of the converts into the fold of Judaism. Obviously some places had Messianic converts meeting together, who had received the gospel, but later rejected Paul and those working with him, and joining with these super-apostles connected with Jerusalem.

I would say definitely, yes, Paul did tell some to leave an existing believer group and form a separate group, whether I can find it recorded or not. Paul constantly warned the churches to "beware of dogs," yet even to the end he hoped the differences would not cause a permanent divide, and hoped to minimize the differences. (ref. Romans 14)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

9

The literature showed LSM operatives going hard into China in the '80s after that country 'opened' to the west. In the mid-'90s WL publicly claimed 15 to 20 million shouters affiliated with his ministry. A number of cults came out of the same shouters; not merely cults as defined by PRC government but as defined by Christian consensus (Lord Changshou sect, EL, etc).

Am I reading too much causality between the lines here? Perhaps. But when I look at their operations, I see the same hallmarks of WL and the LSM, just like the DYL spin-off in Brasil: secrecy, paranoia, centralised control, isolationism, cheap sloganeering.

Or do we think Baptists would have gone into China proclaiming, "The age of the word is over; it's the age of the spirit"? I saw videos smuggled out where they repetitively shouted WL's theological statements. "God became man to make man God/Untraceable economy" - What happens when the meeting's focus turns from the word of God, to whatever the Ascended Master cooked up today?

This is of course a subjective assessment. It may be as Chris Wilde said, that LSM had nothing to do with the chaos on the mainland ten years after WL passed.

Any country where superstition abounds that could happen.

I know that catholic and evangelical efforts in india and similar superstitious places have resulted in many accepting Christ..but just as another one of the hundred gods they already have.

Yet i would not say it was spawned by those efforts. That is the unfortunate result when preaching in a superstitious country.

[aron]

For the sake of continuing the discussion, suppose I'm a believer in Millville who wants to gather with others of the same faith. "Do not forsake the assembling together", right? Now, where do I go?

Not to the Millville Baptist Church, as they've taken a name other than Jesus Christ. Same with the Millville Lutheran Church and Millville Presbyterian Church. Notice that I don't care for their condition or situation, whether they have faith or love one another or care for the Bible. No, they have denominated themselves.

Okay, what about the Millville Christian Assembly? They seem like nice folks. Earnest, sincere. No, that's a name, too. ( I guess). How about the Millville Bible Chapel? Or the Pratts Corner Christian Fellowship down on Jerry Road? No, those are all names. They're all denominated & thus divided.

Turns out the only way to serve God in this age, and enter into His will, is to be non-named lovers of Jesus, affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Because if you're non-named and still unaffiliated, you're a 'free group', useless to the Body at best. No, the only way to go on positively is to not take a name, but also to affiliate with the ministry of the age.
_________________________
The above is my take on the LSM position. I guess folks like testallthings agree the first part, except maybe not the affiliating with a named (!!!) ministry.

What I sense emanating from LSM is a desire to dominate the assembly, the 'loves to be first' noted 3 John 1:9, causing the LSM to start with the presumption that all others are in darkness, and need to be brought in line. The Bible becomes a bit player, to be waved in support and otherwise ignored (see, e.g., footnotes on 'fallen' and 'natural' and 'mixed' scriptures). Thus the tortuous gospel of localism and centralised control of Nee and Lee emerges, self-constructed delusion and bound for yet more disarray.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Any country where superstition abounds that could happen.

I know that catholic and evangelical efforts in india and similar superstitious places have resulted in many accepting Christ..but just as another one of the hundred gods they already have.

Yet i would not say it was spawned by those efforts. That is the unfortunate result when preaching in a superstitious country.

But weren't Watchman Nee and Witness Lee supposed to be free from bias, self-interest and ignorance? Whatever happened to the "virgin soil" of China? And why is it that the yardstick suddenly changes when we measure the ministers of the age, versus the society they came from?

I see a lot of sublimated superstition in the ministries of both men. It is not as blatant as elsewhere, so it's doubly dangerous. Certain things are emphasized, even obsessively so. Certain things are ignored, or waved off. Bias, ignorance and self-interest - just like the rest of us suffer from.

And this trait, when writ large upon the populace, shows up in aberrant group practices. Certainly it's a contributing factor to the emergence & spread of the Chinese pseudo-Christian cults. Likewise, in the excesses of the aberrant spin-offs we can see the carefully hidden imbalances of the source. The EL and Changshou Shouters and the rest of the deviant sects merely amplified what they were given by the parent ministry. They took it to the next logical step. And in the variegated fruit, the tendencies (ignorance and superstition) of the tree are more clearly seen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were free from cant, from bias, from self-interest and ignorance? Whatever happened to the "virgin soil" of China? And why is it that the yardstick suddenly changes when we measure the ministers of the age?

I see a lot of sublimated superstition in the ministries of both. It is not as blatant as elsewhere, so it's doubly dangerous. Certain things are emphasized, even obsessively so. Certain things are ignored, or waved off. Bias, ignorance and self-interest. Just like the rest of us.

Apostle Paul (and the Twelve) were regularly held up to fiery examination in public scrutiny, unlike Witness Lee who wilted and filed lawsuits. Not only were Lee's methods and teachings beyond consideration, but mere opinions about them were censured and threatened with the leprosy of Meriam.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

For the sake of continuing the discussion, suppose I'm a believer in Millville who wants to gather with others of the same faith. "Do not forsake the assembling together", right? Now, where do I go?

Not to the Millville Baptist Church, as they've taken a name other than Jesus Christ. Same with the Millville Lutheran Church and Millville Presbyterian Church. Notice that I don't care for their condition or situation, whether they have faith or love one another or care for the Bible. No, they have denominated themselves.

Okay, what about the Millville Christian Assembly? They seem like nice folks. Earnest, sincere. No, that's a name, too. ( I guess). How about the Millville Bible Chapel? Or the Pratts Corner Christian Fellowship down on Jerry Road? No, those are all names. They're all denominated & thus divided.

Turns out the only way to serve God in this age, and enter into His will, is to be non-named lovers of Jesus, affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Because if you're non-named and still unaffiliated, you're a 'free group', useless to the Body at best. No, the only way to go on positively is to not take a name, but also to affiliate with the ministry of the age.
_________________________
The above is my take on the LSM position. I guess folks like testallthings agree the first part, except maybe not the affiliating with a named (!!!) ministry.

What I sense emanating from LSM is a desire to dominate the assembly, the 'loves to be first' noted 3 John 1:9, causing the LSM to start with the presumption that all others are in darkness, and need to be brought in line. The Bible becomes a bit player, to be waved in support and otherwise ignored (see, e.g., footnotes on 'fallen' and 'natural' and 'mixed' scriptures). Thus the tortuous gospel of localism and centralised control of Nee and Lee emerges, self-constructed delusion and bound for yet more disarray.

Aron,

You've basically paraphrased Watchman Nee in his book the Normal Christian Church Life. The situation was that newly converted believers who did not want to join a denomination had no where else to go.

Suppose they want to find the genuine local church in the city. Because they have read the bible and found that in the bible times there was only "the church". But instead they find they have 20 different denominations (or 20 "churches") to choose from. Which one is the genuine local church they should join? They might decide to visit each different ones on alternating weeks. Or they might resign themselves to the fact there is no genuine local church, and settle for one of the 20.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But weren't Watchman Nee and Witness Lee supposed to be free from bias, self-interest and ignorance? Whatever happened to the "virgin soil" of China? And why is it that the yardstick suddenly changes when we measure the ministers of the age, versus the society they came from?

I see a lot of sublimated superstition in the ministries of both men. It is not as blatant as elsewhere, so it's doubly dangerous. Certain things are emphasized, even obsessively so. Certain things are ignored, or waved off. Bias, ignorance and self-interest - just like the rest of us suffer from.

And this trait, when writ large upon the populace, shows up in aberrant group practices. Certainly it's a contributing factor to the emergence & spread of the Chinese pseudo-Christian cults. Likewise, in the excesses of the aberrant spin-offs we can see the carefully hidden imbalances of the source. The EL and Changshou Shouters and the rest of the deviant sects merely amplified what they were given by the parent ministry. They took it to the next logical step. And in the variegated fruit, the tendencies (ignorance and superstition) of the tree are more clearly seen.

Could you please elaborate on what superstitions you are talking about in the ministries of Lee and Nee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. Or they might resign themselves to the fact there is no genuine local church, and settle for one of the 20.

Yes, and now they get a genuine local church, tightly controlled by - sorry, affiliated with - a publishing house in Southern California. So genuine! So local!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Could you please elaborate on what superstitions you are talking about in the ministries of Lee and Nee.

Think about 5,000 years of culture. Think about how Nee got saved - his mother apologized to him! Chinese parents never apologize to their children! Chinese culture is so strong that it permeates nearly everything. You can't see this? All I can say is think about it.

You really think Nee was so dispositionally transformed that he wasn't affected by culture? Look at his writings on leadership in the church. Dripping with Asianisms. "Know who is in front of you and get in line". As Lee said, eventually the fox tails come out.

And culture is nothing but superstition with buttons on front.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by aron

For the sake of continuing the discussion, suppose I'm a believer in Millville who wants to gather with others of the same faith. "Do not forsake the assembling together", right? Now, where do I go?

Not to the Millville Baptist Church, as they've taken a name other than Jesus Christ. Same with the Millville Lutheran Church and Millville Presbyterian Church. Notice that I don't care for their condition or situation, whether they have faith or love one another or care for the Bible. No, they have denominated themselves.

Okay, what about the Millville Christian Assembly? They seem like nice folks. Earnest, sincere. No, that's a name, too. ( I guess). How about the Millville Bible Chapel? Or the Pratts Corner Christian Fellowship down on Jerry Road? No, those are all names. They're all denominated & thus divided.

Turns out the only way to serve God in this age, and enter into His will, is to be non-named lovers of Jesus, affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Because if you're non-named and still unaffiliated, you're a 'free group', useless to the Body at best. No, the only way to go on positively is to not take a name, but also to affiliate with the ministry of the age.
_________________________
The above is my take on the LSM position. I guess folks like testallthings agree the first part, except maybe not the affiliating with a named (!!!) ministry.

What I sense emanating from LSM is a desire to dominate the assembly, the 'loves to be first' noted 3 John 1:9, causing the LSM to start with the presumption that all others are in darkness, and need to be brought in line. The Bible becomes a bit player, to be waved in support and otherwise ignored (see, e.g., footnotes on 'fallen' and 'natural' and 'mixed' scriptures). Thus the tortuous gospel of localism and centralised control of Nee and Lee emerges, self-constructed delusion and bound for yet more disarray.

For the sake of furthering the discussion let me clarify the purpose of this thread. What I was hoping for was a discussion about denominations. Are they OK? Are they wrong?

To use an imperfect illustration, for example, it is like discussing the benefits and risks of drinking coffee. Imagine someone complaining that tea is worst than coffee, or that those who drink tea look down on those who drink coffee. This would be irrelevant to the discussion.

Or imagine doctors trying to come up with a diagnose of a patient and without completing all their tests someone complains about a certain treatment that would harm the patient.

So far, it seems to me that only OBW has shared his point of view about some benefits of having different denominations. Let's continue to analyze the question.

[aron]

Originally Posted by testallthings

. . it seems to me that only OBW has shared his point of view about some benefits of having different denominations. Let's continue to analyze the question.

I've already mentioned on this thread the benefit of a name on the outside of the building: you'll at least have some clue as to the theology taught within.

Do you think the Baptists or Lutherans would evangelize China by proclaiming that the age of the word was over & it's now the age of the spirit? Or, it's now the age of small potatoes? The no-name church became a cover for an ignorant and superstitious oriental satrapy. The DYL and TC variants show the same despotic ethos. The children further prove the parent, of what sort it is.

Again, oriental superstition isn't inferior to western, but let's not pretend it's divine. Tens of thousands of us were fooled into thinking that WL, DYL, TC brought them God, free from fallen human culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Don't criticise the Big Boss; in China you can lose your job 40 years after Mao's death merely if you criticise him. Ring any bells, here?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The only word Aron did use is the word "replace" as in

"Or Pol Pot replacing Prince Sihanouk, who was admittedly corrupt and a poor ruler. But the "new and improved" was actually a charnel house, a killing field."

This is in reference to Watchman Nee's view that denominations should be brought down - that was my point that he was addressing. Watchman Nee did not trend towards "bringing denominations down", that has always been the view. Neither does it say that the "new and improved" was "stepping towards" a "killing field". It says it "was actually" that.

And with this part of your post you make it clear that you really don't get it, or you are belligerently ignoring it to argue something else.

The comparison is very valid. Not in details, but in comparison. Pol Pot pointed to the problems with his predecessor yet brought worse. Nee complained about denominations but brought another denomination and deputy authority. No, there was no "killing filed." But PP turned out to be worse than what preceded him. The same can be said for Nee, then Lee (even worse). I know you would not say that. But the observation from the hindsight is that it has a comparable history.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose they want to find the genuine local church in the city.

The answer is simple. Join an assembly. They are all genuine.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And with this part of your post you make it clear that you really don't get it, or you are belligerently ignoring it to argue something else.

The comparison is very valid. Not in details, but in comparison. Pol Pot pointed to the problems with his predecessor yet brought worse. Nee complained about denominations but brought another denomination and deputy authority. No, there was no "killing filed." But PP turned out to be worse than what preceded him. The same can be said for Nee, then Lee (even worse). I know you would not say that. But the observation from the hindsight is that it has a comparable history.

This comparison would only make sense for someone such as yourself who has a preconceived belief that things became worse. If I don't believe that, then I cannot understand the point being made without reference to "moving towards" or some indicator that things moved from good to bad. You seem to mistake my disagreement with the point made (that things were worse), and my disagreement with use of vulgar language, as "not getting it". But I get the comparison, it is not rocket science.