The Fallacy of Ecumenism

[Evangelical]

OBW,

unity is not just a matter of being inclusive or exclusive. Unity is "in Christ" and if you truly knew what that meant you would know that it does not mean we can simply join any other Christian group for fellowship, if they are not fellowshipping "in Christ". Remember that unity is about the unity of the Body of Christ, not the Body of someone else. So we cannot fellowship with the "body of something else", only Christ will do.

It does not make sense for you to ask that we leave life (Christ) and join death (not Christ) for the sake of unity. The Lord does not just desire unity but also holiness. The Babylonian worldly mixture as expressed by ecumenism is a kind of unity. You would ask that we join with that, and we cannot. The Lord would not ask us to compromise worship in Spirit and truth for the sake of unity. In other words, we are not going to approach Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and Mormons for example and join with them just for the sake of unity. If this were a matter of worshiping Christ in any way we liked, then you would have a point. But it isn't. The Bible teaches us that we should worship according to God's way - in Spirit and in truth. Denominations conducting services not focused on Christ - a worship service, a program, an activity, something other than Christ, we cannot join that in the name of so-called "fellowship". In many places, you would be hard pressed to find a denominational church in which any member can share, pray, contribute freely, like they can in the Lord's Recovery. The alternative is house churches which are too small to be a church. Simply attending church services is not genuine fellowship or worship in Spirit and truth. It must be fellowship "in Christ", and cannot be part of the dead religions, and especially those which are degraded by acceptance of gay marriage etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

unity is not just a matter of being inclusive or exclusive. Unity is "in Christ" and if you truly knew what that meant you would know that it does not mean we can simply join any other Christian group for fellowship, if they are not fellowshipping "in Christ". Remember that unity is about the unity of the Body of Christ, not the Body of someone else. So we cannot fellowship with the "body of something else", only Christ will do.

It does not make sense for you to ask that we leave life (Christ) and join death (not Christ) for the sake of unity. The Lord does not just desire unity but also holiness. The Babylonian worldly mixture as expressed by ecumenism is a kind of unity. You would ask that we join with that, and we cannot. The Lord would not ask us to compromise worship in Spirit and truth for the sake of unity. In other words, we are not going to approach Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and Mormons for example and join with them just for the sake of unity. If this were a matter of worshiping Christ in any way we liked, then you would have a point. But it isn't. The Bible teaches us that we should worship according to God's way - in Spirit and in truth. Denominations conducting services not focused on Christ - a worship service, a program, an activity, something other than Christ, we cannot join that in the name of so-called "fellowship". In many places, you would be hard pressed to find a denominational church in which any member can share, pray, contribute freely, like they can in the Lord's Recovery. The alternative is house churches which are too small to be a church. Simply attending church services is not genuine fellowship or worship in Spirit and truth. It must be fellowship "in Christ", and cannot be part of the dead religions, and especially those which are degraded by acceptance of gay marriage etc.

And so you make it clear that you have so redefined "in Christ" that those who are truly Christian (believers in Christ, not just attenders of some church) are not necessarily "in Christ."

But they are "in Christ." It is a fallacy — a theological and spiritual error — to say otherwise. It is a fantasy created by people who want to be the only ones who count.

Not worth saying anything more. You have made these statements that it is the way it works, but have provided no basis for it being true. In the grand scheme of things, thinking to the contrary of what you are speaking has been with us since the beginning. It is the novel teachings of Nee and Lee that put forward this demeaning position on everything. To have any reason to take it seriously, you have to have more than their word for it. It needs to have the support of the only solid evidence we have — the Bible. And nothing I have seen to date will get you there.

[Evangelical]

There is an objective positional "in Christ", all believers have that, there is a subjective and experiential "in Christ". We are talking about the latter "in Christ" not the former. Support for that in the Bible is given by Christ's words about abiding in Him, and Paul's words about living and walking by or in the Spirit.

In the local churches everything we say, pray to, and uphold, is Christ. Our minds are "in Christ".

In a denominational service it is possible to not hear the name of Christ mentioned once. Their minds are not in Christ but other things such as how to be successful, how to be blessed etc. They are in Christ positionally but not subjectively and experientially. There are individuals in denominations who are in Christ subjectively, but the environment they are in does not encourage that or get them into that.

[Ohio]

I can say that I have been in many an LC meeting where many attendees had their minds everywhere but Christ. Christ was on their lips, but their hearts were far away. (Matthew 15.7-9)

But who are you, Evangelical, who can know all their hearts? Who are you, Evangelical, to know when the name of Christ is proclaimed in every Christian gathering over the face of the whole earth? Who are you, Evangelical, to know where all God's children are at "experientially?"

To know all this, you must be God, or god, or God-man. Which is it?

[Evangelical]

Ohio, perhaps you did not read my post fully, where I said:

"There are individuals in denominations who are in Christ subjectively..."

[Ohio]

I never said those things.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never said those things.

You are probably right, but others on here have generalized in such a way. I edited my post accordingly.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In a denominational service it is possible to not hear the name of Christ mentioned once. Their minds are not in Christ but other things such as how to be successful, how to be blessed etc. They are in Christ positionally but not subjectively and experientially. There are individuals in denominations who are in Christ subjectively, but the environment they are in does not encourage that or get them into that.

I turned your post around to dispose of the nonsense first.

When you use these kinds of examples as your evidence concerning Christianity in general or a "denominational services" you are taking exceptions and declaring them to be characteristic of the whole. While the "local" attendance and TV following of some like Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, and Benny Hinn have varying misconceptions of what is important to a Christian, they are not representative of Christianity as a whole, or even denominations as a whole.

This is, unfortunately, one of the common errors of attribution that Lee so often used and has been perpetuated over the years.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is an objective positional "in Christ", all believers have that, there is a subjective and experiential "in Christ". We are talking about the latter "in Christ" not the former. Support for that in the Bible is given by Christ's words about abiding in Him, and Paul's words about living and walking by or in the Spirit.

While there is a context in which what you said here is sort of true, I do not see that it is true in the way that you think it is. The rhetoric of the "local churches" is to imply that there is a lot of spiritual activity that must take place to be walking "in the Spirit" or having your mind set on the Spirit. But the evidence does not support it. Romans says set your mind. It says walk according to. It does not say to do a lot of things so that your mind will be set so that you can walk.

So if the scripture says to live and behave in a certain manner, on what basis do you refrain from doing what it says? On what basis is taking steps to live according to the scripture, which is the clear word of God, not according to the Spirit?

And I know the shtick about abiding. Notice that the metaphor for abiding is not taking a nap in a lightly-filtered sunlit forest, breathing the clean, unpolluted air. It is that of a branch that is connected to the trunk of the vine. Other than during a completely dormant period in which there is nothing going on between trunk and branch, a branch is taking what comes up through the system, mostly through the sap, and acting upon it. It adds to its diameter, to its length, it sprouts and grows leaves, buds, flowers, and eventually grapes. The grapes grow until they are either beyond ripe upon which they fall, or until someone comes along an plucks them off for eating or producing drink.

There is never a time during which a branch is accumulating sap so that it can one day burst forth with an extra foot of growth, and fully grown and ripe grapes. No. It takes everything, moment-by-moment, and uses it now. Sort of like Manna (although that might be stretching metaphors). And as it grows, it has to deal with bugs that gnaw on its bark. Or the wounding of a part of the branch due to an animal or other natural event. It could slow or hinder certain parts of otherwise normal growth as the wound is healed.

But unless something causes the branch to die, it is never just waiting for anything. Like Peter sort of said, it has everything needed for growth and grapes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the local churches everything we say, pray to, and uphold, is Christ. Our minds are "in Christ".

You may note that earlier I put "local churches" in quotes, just as I did here. The reason is that any church is, by definition, local. It has a location. The fact that it does or does not join with a group of similar theological leaning (as does the group you belong to) does not deny any particular assembly its status as local.

To use the term like an exclusive moniker is similar to the KKK claiming that "human" belongs to the domain of only whites. And not even all whites. Excluding any who are not Anglo Saxon and Protestant. So no Catholics. I'm sure I've left some out (or more correctly left too many in).

That is the reason that you will see different references for it such as TLR, TR, CoR (all having to do with the notion of recovery) or LCM (Local Church Movement). I have tended toward the latter, thought even that allows it the moniker in part, though it is clarified as being a movement that calls itself by that name.

And if you think you don't call yourself that, look at the statement of plaintiff and defendant on many of the lawsuits that a certain Christian group filed against other Christians for saying bad things about them. Funny they didn't sue the LCM for calling them mooing cows, the whore of Babylon, or her harlot daughters.