One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

This is interesting. Let me tell you about something. Koinonia was kind enough to share this letter from a local church member (he posted it earlier in this forum).

There is a very interesting quote in it which shows that the local church (or at the very least the author) considers every non LC church as being not a church.

Quote (p.2): The Church in Pretoria began to meet in the mid-1970s as the first church in South Africa.

Think about this. With this one statement he claims that all the missionaries in 400 years failed in establishing a church. With this statement he invalidates all the other churches in South Africa up to that point as true churches.

I do not believe the LC to be a cult, merely a denomination (common faith and organization), but things like these make me wonder.

http://www.afaithfulwitness.org/warn...g%20Letter.pdf

That would be consistent with the view that what many call "churches" are in fact organizations or denominations and could not be considered a church in the biblical sense.

Actually it's a practice not just of the LC but some evangelical missionary organizations to plant churches in areas where Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches already exist, because they do not recognize these as real churches.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

could not be considered a church in the biblical sense.

Need I say more?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That would be consistent with the view that what many call "churches" are in fact organizations or denominations and could not be considered a church in the biblical sense.

Actually it's a practice not just of the LC but some evangelical missionary organizations to plant churches in areas where Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches already exist, because they do not recognize these as real churches.

It is actually a practice of most because it takes more than the one planting to make it grow. There must be those who till, who water, etc.

Besides, for all the approaches to "preaching" the gospel, the key to each heart is different. Some hear a man talk of living water and drop their bucket and run off to tell everyone what they have heard. Others come and listen, then leave to think on it. But whenever it happens, some 3 years later they are among those who believe, and in this case take charge of the burial of the Lord.

Knocking on doors is not the end-all of evangelism. Neither is great messages. Neither is lengthy discussions and teaching. For some, it starts with observation of those who are known to have chosen "the way" as it was sometimes called in the early days. That is followed by the realization that there is something to look further into.

All this talk about denominations is just a basis for enforcing division. Denominations are not as divided from each other as those who demand that the fact of denominations simply excludes them from the discussion. They demand absolute unity but seek to find every reason to exclude.

On what basis is any gathering of believers not a church "in the biblical sense" simply because they tend toward a form of doctrinal commonality or have taken overt steps to be something other than haphazard and disorganized. It is clear that the LCM does just that. They meet separately from anyone that they don't completely agree with. Then point the finger at all those others who don't see things their way and agree with them.

Oddly, most of those denominations are less insistent on their doctrines when it comes to the unity of the church as a whole. Unlike some who not only want doctrinal unity on the inside of their group, but also on the outside. They don't demand that you see things their way, even though they think theirs is the better way. But you do. You demand unity on your terms.

Or else. Accept the demeaning and name-calling. And the lawsuits if we suggest there is something unchristian about any of it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is actually a practice of most because it takes more than the one planting to make it grow. There must be those who till, who water, etc.

Besides, for all the approaches to "preaching" the gospel, the key to each heart is different. Some hear a man talk of living water and drop their bucket and run off to tell everyone what they have heard. Others come and listen, then leave to think on it. But whenever it happens, some 3 years later they are among those who believe, and in this case take charge of the burial of the Lord.

Knocking on doors is not the end-all of evangelism. Neither is great messages. Neither is lengthy discussions and teaching. For some, it starts with observation of those who are known to have chosen "the way" as it was sometimes called in the early days. That is followed by the realization that there is something to look further into.

All this talk about denominations is just a basis for enforcing division. Denominations are not as divided from each other as those who demand that the fact of denominations simply excludes them from the discussion. They demand absolute unity but seek to find every reason to exclude.

On what basis is any gathering of believers not a church "in the biblical sense" simply because they tend toward a form of doctrinal commonality or have taken overt steps to be something other than haphazard and disorganized. It is clear that the LCM does just that. They meet separately from anyone that they don't completely agree with. Then point the finger at all those others who don't see things their way and agree with them.

Oddly, most of those denominations are less insistent on their doctrines when it comes to the unity of the church as a whole. Unlike some who not only want doctrinal unity on the inside of their group, but also on the outside. They don't demand that you see things their way, even though they think theirs is the better way. But you do. You demand unity on your terms.

Or else. Accept the demeaning and name-calling. And the lawsuits if we suggest there is something unchristian about any of it.

It does not matter how insistent or not insistent they are, they are still an organized division as long as they remain de-name-iating themselves by calling themselves after "another man's name".

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It does not matter how insistent or not insistent they are, they are still an organized division as long as they remain de-name-iating themselves by calling themselves after "another man's name".

The only difference between the LC and all the other denominations is that the LC does not have an official name. That is the one and only difference setting you apart from other denominations.

Besides that the LC has a distinct faith and organization. Arguing over the lack of a name is splitting hairs.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

The only difference between the LC and all the other denominations is that the LC does not have an official name. That is the one and only difference setting you apart from other denominations.

Besides that the LC has a distinct faith and organization. Arguing over the lack of a name is splitting hairs.

Jesus and the 12 disciples had a distinct faith and organization, that's not the point.

If we do not have an official name, then we are NOT de-name-iating, so we are not a denomination.

Dictionary time: denomination means "to give a name to".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denominate

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus and the 12 disciples had a distinct faith and organization, that's not the point.

If we do not have an official name, then we are NOT de-name-iating, so we are not a denomination.

Dictionary time: denomination means "to give a name to".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denominate

You are giving a definition of a verb, to denominate. That is different from denomination as a noun. The definition I gave from the OED is applicable, yours are not.

But since you're fond of Merriam Webster, why didn't you look up the noun?

a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination

[DistantStar]

As far as I understand, denominate as a verb has no religious connotations at all.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You are giving a definition of a verb, to denominate. That is different from denomination as a noun. The definition I gave from the OED is applicable, yours are not.

But since you're fond of Merriam Webster, why didn't you look up the noun?



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination

lol doesn't help you sorry. I realize English may not be your first language, but a word can be both a noun and a verb, it does not change the clear meaning. To denominate (verb) is what they did when they chose a name for themselves. Then they became a denomination (noun), as "ones who denominated themselves". A denomination (noun) is an organization of those who have denominated (verb) themselves.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

The only difference between the LC and all the other denominations is that the LC does not have an official name. That is the one and only difference setting you apart from other denominations.

Besides that the LC has a distinct faith and organization. Arguing over the lack of a name is splitting hairs.

Let's talk about taking names. Whether I look at the state revenue website or in the yellow pages, ones that call themselves "the church in ____" is taking a name. Without that name, I can't tell what their phone number is or where they meet.
The matter of denominating, I see it more of a heart and attitude issue than a name issue. For several years my family and I met with a Baptist denomination. I found them to be less divisive than some of the local churches I've met with or visited.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Let's talk about taking names. Whether I look at the state revenue website or in the yellow pages, ones that call themselves "the church in ____" is taking a name. Without that name, I can't tell what their phone number is or where they meet.
The matter of denominating, I see it more of a heart and attitude issue than a name issue. For several years my family and I met with a Baptist denomination. I found them to be less divisive than some of the local churches I've met with or visited.

Obviously Evangelical and others in the Recovery are thoroughly convinced that only "the church in __________" is the proper, officially-sanctioned, God-ordained, Biblically-approved church name.

Then what should be done when another church has already taken and registered that name? Are not they now the only proper, officially-sanctioned, God-ordained, Biblically-approved church in that city?

No! Of course not! That proper, officially-sanctioned, God-ordained, Biblically-approved church name then means nothing. So the LSM local church franchise must then find an alternate name that is proper, officially-sanctioned, God-ordained, and Biblically-approved. (This has happened!) And more than once!

And what would that name be? And why don't they all join that church with the proper, officially-sanctioned, God-ordained, Biblically-approved church name? And how many other alternative names are thus available besides the default name "the church in __________".

Let's be honest folks. Names actually mean nothing to LC/LSM leadership. Evangelical why won't you admit it? The whole matter of names is simply used by LSM as a means to condemn all other churches. Like that guy who condemned all churches for praying publicly, and not in their "closets." It sure would be nice if Evangelical would finally admit that LSM only approves churches that buy only their books and attend their trainings.

They really don't care what name you take if you will do that.