Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Then you would argue that Nee, Lee, Kuang, and others, including yourself, should have remained where they were prior to being part of Nee's group. Under your thinking, Nee was in error to step away from whoever it was that he first met with. Same for Lee, and Kuang, and you, and me.
And if it all started with Luther stepping away from the RCC, then we all have no choice but to reunite with the RCC. If doctrines and practices are not grounds for meeting separately, then we should ignore the practices that we find so objectionable and rejoin the RCC. Besides, if there were that many who would not pray to Saints or to Mary, then maybe those practices would end. They were not there from the beginning. And others have fallen off along the way. They can change. And the weight of the Evangelical body reuniting with them would really make an impact.
Not saying to do it. Rather pointing out why there is no way to argue against Luther leaving while defending one of the latest to leave other groups to start yet another. Doesn't matter that the doctrine that they think is important is not accepted. They should remain.
Can't have it both ways. "You can't leave any group to join another. But everyone must leave their group to join ours."
Yeah. Right.
|
Think you misunderstood what I wrote. I am saying it is right to step away from the corruption, but wrong to make just another denomination which becomes another corruption. Luther should have stepped from the RC church to the ground of locality, not to the Lutheran church. Christians are already in a group, the body of Christ, it is wrong to make another group within that group, which is what all denominations are. There are just Christians, there are no Lutheran Christians, Baptist Christians etc.. this additional group qualifier is what is against genuine oneness. Of course there must be a group to remain in, that group is the body of Christ on the ground of oneness in each locality.