One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

In your previous post, you said "Believers take issue with being told they are blind and not part of Christ's church". You claimed that we say that believers are not part of Christ's church.

But we never say believers are not part of Christ's church.

The church is expressed on this earth in localities, and where there is an expression of the church, that expression must be one. Let us be simple. Let us not be complicated by the confusion in Christianity. It is a shame to ask people what church they belong to. If someone is a brother, that is all we need to know. I belong to the church, and you belong to the church. We all belong to the church.
Witness Lee, Basic Principles for the Practice of the Church Life

What you believe in is a confusion of different fellowships within the one city and not biblical Christianity. The situation of Christians being divided according to denomination is not biblical. These are not "one visible church" as you claim, but many visible denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you believe in is a confusion of different fellowships within the one city and not biblical Christianity. The situation of Christians being divided according to denomination is not biblical. These are not "one visible church" as you claim, but many visible denominations.

Lee established false standards for Christian meetings in order to condemn the rest of the body of Christ. For example, even though the New Testament rejects circumcision as a requirement for salvation (Acts 15.1, 28), it does allow for for both Jewish and Gentile ministries (Gal 2.7-9). These, in effect, were two emerging N.T. denominations, contrary to Evangelical's rigorous claims. You can say that circumcision is nothing, neither is uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Gal 6.15) Cannot the body of Christ also say that Luther is nothing, Baptism is nothing, Pentecostalism is nothing, locality is nothing, but we are all one in Christ!

It doesn't take more than a passing interest in people to know that different peoples need different meetings of the church, and for sure churches would develop over time to meet these different needs. The N.T. mentions widows, for example, (Acts 6, I Timothy 5) and were not many gatherings, prayers, fellowships, etc. needed to care for them? If a church is primarily a widow-serving church (e.g. Gahanna Community Church) is it not still a church, though it is affiliated with widow-serving churches around the world? Or is it a dreaded denomination because of the burden the Lord put in their heart?

LSM prides itself with all their language meetings, i.e. Chinese-speaking, Spanish-speaking, college-speaking, new-ones-speaking (Yes, I have heard all of this) It is a joke to declare that some of the larger churches do not have "divided" English and Chinese churches in the same city. They have different places to meet, different offerings, different leaders, etc. but since both are attached to LSM, they declare them as "one church" in the city, with, of course, 94.5% of its members living in different cities.

Hypocrisy, my friends, is doing what they do, but claiming you do not, so that you can condemn them. (Romans 2.1)

[Evangelical]

Ohio, yes, believers who attend Lutheran church can indeed say that. And so can those who attend the Baptist church on the same street. But then if they believe that they should ask themselves for what purpose are they meeting in different places under different names. That is, Christ and their locality is not enough for fellowship.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio, yes, believers who attend Lutheran church can indeed say that. And so can those who attend the Baptist church on the same street. But then if they believe that they should ask themselves for what purpose are they meeting in different places under different names. That is, Christ and their locality is not enough for fellowship.

Christ plus locality?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Christ plus locality?

Hebrews 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together".

We need locality to be "assembled together".

Christ covers only the spiritual aspect. Locality covers the practical aspect.

It is possible to fellowship in locality but not in Christ, and in Christ but not in locality. The internet is an example of that. This forum is somewhat a fellowship. Does it make this forum a church? No. We are not floating spirits, we have physical bodies and are constrained by space and time. So the locality is important.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hebrews 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together".

We need locality to be "assembled together".

Christ covers only the spiritual aspect. Locality covers the practical aspect.

It is possible to fellowship in locality but not in Christ, and in Christ but not in locality. The internet is an example of that. This forum is somewhat a fellowship. Does it make this forum a church? No. We are not floating spirits, we have physical bodies and are constrained by space and time. So the locality is important.

Yes, assembly is important, but not locality.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hebrews 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together".

We need locality to be "assembled together".

No, you do not. You need people to be assembled together. And that is what the church is--people.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, you do not. You need people to be assembled together. And that is what the church is--people.

How can we assemble together without locality? People must be in the same area.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio, yes, believers who attend Lutheran church can indeed say that. And so can those who attend the Baptist church on the same street. But then if they believe that they should ask themselves for what purpose are they meeting in different places under different names. That is, Christ and their locality is not enough for fellowship.

Columbus, OH has three LC's. One is of Lee, one is of Chu, and one is of Christ.

If they are all one, all on the local ground, all standing for the testimony of Jesus, then as you say, "they should ask themselves for what purpose are they meeting in different places under different names."

Obviously there are serious problems with your thought lines. There is far more bad blood between these three lovely congregations, than there is in any three other congregations in town. A few lawsuits will do that. Why did this have to happen? Columbus is not unique. Some cities have more than 3 divisions.

Given enough time, they will be like the Exclusives in London who literally had 20 different gatherings, all claiming to originate from the visionary teachings of John Darby, who btw was the source of Nee's "revelations."

Like I said, your utopean vision produces only more divisions, and has never been practiced in church history. It exists only as a matter of pride, a self-roghteous pride that enables its adherents to condemn all outsiders, while sitting in trainings shouting their slogans to one another.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Columbus, OH has three LC's. One is of Lee, one is of Chu, and one is of Christ.

If they are all one, all on the local ground, all standing for the testimony of Jesus, then as you say, "they should ask themselves for what purpose are they meeting in different places under different names."

Obviously there are serious problems with your thought lines. There is far more bad blood between these three lovely congregations, than there is in any three other congregations in town. A few lawsuits will do that. Why did this have to happen? Columbus is not unique. Some cities have more than 3 divisions.

Given enough time, they will be like the Exclusives in London who literally had 20 different gatherings, all claiming to originate from the visionary teachings of John Darby, who btw was the source of Nee's "revelations."

Like I said, your utopean vision produces only more divisions, and has never been practiced in church history. It exists only as a matter of pride, a self-roghteous pride that enables its adherents to condemn all outsiders, while sitting in trainings shouting their slogans to one another.

Like so many things in the Christian life the Bible sets the high standard and church is no exception. Wasn't easy for the apostle Paul either and was not meant to be a recipe for success. Yet practical oneness should still be the goal and I believe this was Paul's vision as well.

[Exodus16]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In your previous post, you said "Believers take issue with being told they are blind and not part of Christ's church". You claimed that we say that believers are not part of Christ's church.

But we never say believers are not part of Christ's church.


What you believe in is a confusion of different fellowships within the one city and not biblical Christianity. The situation of Christians being divided according to denomination is not biblical. These are not "one visible church" as you claim, but many visible denominations.

There you did it again. You just said when I meet with believers, but not according to your prescribed doctrine, I am not the visible church. I knew Pentecostal who said I didn't have the Spirit bc I didn't pray in tongues. I didn't let that slide either.
Every time believers gather together, they assemble those are synonymous terms. That's the church, simple as could be.
we're all human and fallen and every biblical church was full of arguing and sin and division even as today. In the world we live in everything is confusion, anyone who says differently is selling something.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

There you did it again. You just said when I pray with a sister at the baseball diamond that is not the visible church. Every time believers gather together, they assemble those are synonymous terms. That's the church, simple as could be.
Except we're all human and fallen and every biblical church was full of arguing and sin and division even as today. In the world we live in everything is confusion, anyone who says differently is selling something.

You and a sister praying together are in the one church, but you can't claim to be "the church" or "a church". Those words would be exclusive to every other believer in your city. I am not saying that you and a sister praying are not part of Christ's church, I am saying that you and a sister praying together is not "a church" or "the church".

If we cut up a body and scattered the body parts around a city, and called each body part "a church", that is the situation of denominationalism and Christianity today, where each "body part" considers itself to be a church. Similarly we cannot look at the arm and say "that is the body", and look at the leg and say "that is the body". Obviously they are only body parts.

On this basis, that is why if you say you and a sister praying are "a church", you are wrong, and if you say you are "the church", you are also wrong.

Only if we consider all of those parts to belong to the one body, can we call it "a church" and "the church".

I draw your attention to the fact that the context of Matthew 18:15-20 which talks about two or three gathered in Christ's name, is dealing with a sinning brother and prayers of agreement. In fact, if you compare Matthew 18:16 with 18:17, you will see that it says to tell it to the two or three, and then tell it to the church. Clearly, the two or three cannot be the church. The church is something more than just two or three gathered together, it involves a godly appointed leadership and administration. Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not saying that you and a sister praying are not part of Christ's church, I am saying that you and a sister praying together is not "a church" or "the church".

. . .Only if we consider all of those parts to belong to the one body, can we call it "a church" and "the church".

The Lord Jesus said that if two or more gather in His name, He will be there among us. But you say, "That's not the church". So the presence of the Spirit of Christ is insufficient?

And from thence, how much further, to the Great Harlot, with a scarlet robe and gilded cup full of abominations? Not too far, in my estimation.

And how much further, to the One Publication edict, with no buying or selling in the "local churches" apart from the Mark of the Ministry? Not much further, just a little more.

To me, this is someone coming along and saying, "Everyone but me is in confusion and division. I'm here to save you. My logical constructs will show you the way home." Servitude follows forthwith. This is not the home Christ promised.

"For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery."

I remember once, when the Ascended Master in Anaheim had an inspiration, that we all gather in Vital Teams by geography, and go and canvas the neighbourhood for the New Move of the Lord. In six years, he said, the Lord would return. We watched this on video in silence . . . the video ended. Silence. Then one sister piped up brightly, "But it's the church!" Nothing was too ridiculous for us, we felt. Because it's the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The Lord Jesus said that if two or more gather in His name, He will be there among us. But you say, "That's not the church". So the presence of the Spirit of Christ is insufficient?

aron,

Well you don't understand what the Lord Jesus meant. The verse does not say that 2 or 3 gathered is a church. It is talking about 2 or 3 witnesses as per 2 Cor 13:1 "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

The context is dealing with a sinning brother and prayers of agreement, and we can see that it says if a person does not listen to the two or three, then tell it to the church (compare verse 16 and verse 17). So clearly, the church is bigger than just the two or three, and the church is not the two or three. Reading from verse 15 gives the right context, and for convenience, many bible versions have titled this section "dealing with a sinning brother".

Dealing with a Sinning Brother (MKJV) Matthew 18:15-20
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The local church is a bigger city-wide entity, with a leadership (elders were appointed in every church) and with an administration and authority (Matthew 18:17). So it's not right to say two or three gathered are "the church".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

aron,

The verse does not say that 2 or 3 gathered is a church.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am there in your midst."

But you say this is insufficient, and propose improvements, necessary ones.

I remember distinctly that the Ascended Master in Anaheim felt we weren't vital enough, and sent out trainers. They had us come up front and thrust out our two arms as we sang, "PSRP/BNPB makes the eagle fly", and as we waved them up and down. Such was the spirit then motivating the assembly.

But it's the church, right?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am there in your midst."

But you say this is insufficient, and propose improvements, necessary ones.

I remember distinctly that the Ascended Master in Anaheim felt we weren't vital enough, and sent out trainers. They had us come up front and thrust out our two arms as we sang, "PSRP/BNPB makes the eagle fly", and as we waved them up and down. Such was the spirit then motivating the assembly.

But it's the church, right?

If two or three are the church as you say, then how do you explain "the church" in verse 17 here?:

Matthew 18: 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Matthew 18:17 And if he refuses to hear them (the two or three, emphasis mine), tell it to the church.

Obviously, the two or three in verse 16 is not the same as the church in verse 17.

It is saying, in verse 15, talk to your brother first, then in verse 16, take one or two with you (that is the two or three), and then in verse 17, tell it to "the church". Obviously two or three brothers with you cannot be "the church". Telling it to the church means tell it to the elders of the church. The church is not just two or three, it is bigger than that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, I am there in your midst."

But you say this is insufficient, and propose improvements, necessary ones.

I remember distinctly that the Ascended Master in Anaheim felt we weren't vital enough, and sent out trainers. They had us come up front and thrust out our two arms as we sang, "PSRP/BNPB makes the eagle fly", and as we waved them up and down. Such was the spirit then motivating the assembly.

But it's the church, right?

It's very safe to say, in the context of those scripture, that "tell it to the church" is to tell it to the elders, not to tell it to the whole city of believers. And they most probably were the elders in the assembly the two parties met with.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

aron,

19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.".

It says, "concerning anything", not "concerning a sinning brother". Why be so narrow, and restrictive in interpretation? Because your preferred reading forces it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

It says, "concerning anything", not "concerning a sinning brother". Why be so narrow, and restrictive in interpretation? Because your preferred reading forces it?

Because I've bothered to look up the verses and the context. "concerning anything" is a general statement and also includes the context of the previous verses about a sinning brother (presumably to pray and agree about what action should be taken). Still doesn't prove that two or three can be a church. You'd have to explain why it says we should "tell the church" in verse 17. By your reckoning, just having two or three with you should be enough (verse 16).

I agree that Jesus is in the midst of two or three, but that doesn't make those two or three a church, anymore than the Lord's presence with us individually makes us a church.

Jesus sent his disciples out two by two:

Mark 6:7 And he called his twelve disciples together and began sending them out two by two, giving them authority to cast out evil spirits.

To say that two or three can be a church, is to say that the 12 disciples were in fact 6 churches which doesn't make sense.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You and a sister praying together are in the one church, but you can't claim to be "the church" or "a church". Those words would be exclusive to every other believer in your city. I am not saying that you and a sister praying are not part of Christ's church, I am saying that you and a sister praying together is not "a church" or "the church".

But that is exactly what the LC does. You get certain few people together who all wish to behave in a certain way, and then you call that "the church."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

But that is exactly what the LC does. You get certain few people together who all wish to behave in a certain way, and then you call that "the church."

By behave in a certain way, do you mean singing hymns, praying and remembering the Lord with the Lord's table as He instructed? And each local church is different really in how it does things. Some have music, some don't, some divide into groups for the prophesying meeting, others remain in one big group, etc.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By behave in a certain way, do you mean singing hymns, praying and remembering the Lord with the Lord's table as He instructed?

No, I mean like meeting at 10AM, brothers in the front row, sisters in the second row, to sing from the LSM hymnal--"Praise of the Lord," then "Remembrance of the Lord," and then "Worship of the Father"--before the 5-minute "opening word" delivered on the LSM outline, followed by the 2-minute "prophecies" on the Witness Lee excerpts, finished with the 5-minute "closing word."

If you really believed that all that is required for a "local church" is singing, praying, and remembering the Lord--on the ground of locality, then you would be perfectly happy in a "brethren" assembly.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, I mean like meeting at 10AM, brothers in the front row, sisters in the second row, to sing from the LSM hymnal--"Praise of the Lord," then "Remembrance of the Lord," and then "Worship of the Father"--before the 5-minute "opening word" delivered on the LSM outline, followed by the 2-minute "prophecies" on the Witness Lee excerpts, finished with the 5-minute "closing word."

If you really believed that all that is required for a "local church" is singing, praying, and remembering the Lord--on the ground of locality, then you would be perfectly happy in a "brethren" assembly.

We aren't the church because we do these things in a certain way but because we meet to fellowship with and remember the Lord. These things have evolved over the years in what we do and things change. Sometimes we don't have the prophesying meeting because of other matters, sometimes it becomes a prayer meeting instead. Sometimes the meeting starts at 9.45 am and other times starts at 10.20 am. For example. But the things we do don't make us the church, it's who we are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, I mean like meeting at 10AM, brothers in the front row, sisters in the second row, to sing from the LSM hymnal--"Praise of the Lord," then "Remembrance of the Lord," and then "Worship of the Father"--before the 5-minute "opening word" delivered on the LSM outline, followed by the 2-minute "prophecies" on the Witness Lee excerpts, finished with the 5-minute "closing word."

If you really believed that all that is required for a "local church" is singing, praying, and remembering the Lord--on the ground of locality, then you would be perfectly happy in a "brethren" assembly.

And they tell us when to stand up, kneel, and then sit down.

Sounds like the Catholic Church I grew up in.

[Exodus16]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You and a sister praying together are in the one church, but you can't claim to be "the church" or "a church". Those words would be exclusive to every other believer in your city. I am not saying that you and a sister praying are not part of Christ's church, I am saying that you and a sister praying together is not "a church" or "the church".

If we cut up a body and scattered the body parts around a city, and called each body part "a church", that is the situation of denominationalism and Christianity today, where each "body part" considers itself to be a church. Similarly we cannot look at the arm and say "that is the body", and look at the leg and say "that is the body". Obviously they are only body parts.

On this basis, that is why if you say you and a sister praying are "a church", you are wrong, and if you say you are "the church", you are also wrong.

Only if we consider all of those parts to belong to the one body, can we call it "a church" and "the church".

I draw your attention to the fact that the context of Matthew 18:15-20 which talks about two or three gathered in Christ's name, is dealing with a sinning brother and prayers of agreement. In fact, if you compare Matthew 18:16 with 18:17, you will see that it says to tell it to the two or three, and then tell it to the church. Clearly, the two or three cannot be the church. The church is something more than just two or three gathered together, it involves a godly appointed leadership and administration. Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church".

I edited my post 122 before I saw that you had already replied. I realized it was too limited in scope. Even so your response is at best semantics but sadly So farcical - "the" church "a" church
Christ will build his church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I edited my post 122 before I saw that you had already replied. I realized it was too limited in scope. Even so your response is at best semantics but sadly So farcical - "the" church "a" church
Christ will build his church.

Might seem like that but the Bible never uses the word churches (plural) in the context of a city. Always one church per city, that's historical fact.

[Exodus16]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Might seem like that but the Bible never uses the word churches (plural) in the context of a city. Always one church per city, that's historical fact.

Yup. Every believer in the city. And the believer may fellowship in different meeting halls but they are all the church. This is the lip service of the Lc movement, but the reality and practical application is that The Lc do not endeavor to be one with all the believers. The Lc is divided from the other believers by the doctrine of the ground of locality. They are not inclusive but exclusive.