One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Really?

"We" don't "do it". "We" follow the Lamb ourselves and otherwise mind our own business. Don't impose our own will upon others. Don't presume to speak for God when He can well speak for Himself. Allow others the freedom which God has allowed for His own children. HIS children. Not yours. His.

Common sense and church history? Really? Is that the standard? Whose common sense? What chapter of church history? Can we say that "church history" is full of man interfering with believers who have been misled away from the leading of the Holy Spirit? Is God so inept that He needs you to define His church for Him and dictate how to "do" it?

Lord help us and forgive us for our presumption.

Nell

Common sense - just as common sense tells us that a married couple should live together, we can say that a church should be one and not scattered in various denominations.

Church history - the church history that shows the church was one for hundreds of years. The notion of doing church however we like and not according to any God-ordained pattern or blue print is a modern invention of man. That's why even Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc do not agree with this view.

Should we trust someone who claims to know the invisible God yet cannot define the visible church? 1 John 4:20 ".....for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen".

If Christians cannot be unified visibly and practically with their brothers in Christ (when there is no good reason for them not to be) then their claims to know the invisible God are just empty words.

The denominations are catering for the whims and desires of individuals but not striving for achieving God's plan for oneness and unity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Common sense - just as common sense tells us that a married couple should live together, we can say that a church should be one and not scattered in various denominations.

Well then, the church I attend has no denominational ties. I suggest that everyone in Dallas should join with ours. We were here long before anything that tried to usurp our un-denominated position with a formula for a name.

But unlike yours, we do not denigrate others for simply not being us. We do have reasoned discussion about issues of spiritual importance. But it does not invalidate the other(s), rather provides something for consideration. And if they change their view, they are not obligated to shutter their meeting and join ours. Rather we can, and do even without the agreement on the nonessential issues, continue as the church of Christ, bearing His image in this world. And in unity concerning our faith in Christ.

Unfortunately, there are some who declare that unity is only found in agreement on all things and that such agreement should be based on their understanding. They have no unity with anyone no agreeing completely with them and taking their way.

That is not unity no matter how "right" you think you name is. The name does not spread a healing balm over the sectarian wounds of your demand for your way or else. It does not correct the errors of you sectarianism. You are not Israel —the "chosen people of God" — based on a name. That is a fantasy. You are part of the household of faith. No less. No more.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church history - the church history that shows the church was one for hundreds of years. The notion of doing church however we like and not according to any God-ordained pattern or blue print is a modern invention of man. That's why even Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican etc do not agree with this view.

Actually, the church was not so one, even in the first century. Paul had to take one to task for not even being one all by itself. And there was contention between the gentile and Jewish churches.

Following that, there was great dissention over things. Some of them we think of as significant errors, and others just differences in what we would now call the non-essentials. But those that wanted total and complete unity dictated the thinking through the councils and eventually through the wielding of authority granted by the government.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.

Yet you claim there was this wonderful unity from the beginning and going on for several centuries thereafter. I would not disagree that there was a tendency for uniformity within the primary groups. And do not say that was bad. But even you agree that the answer was not to still be within those ancient groups. Rather to find your way according to your conscience and understanding of scripture. You want it one way for your group, and the opposite for everyone else.

Unity is not simply in the EO, or RCC, or any other earlier group. It is found in Christ. And Christ is in all of us. It the prayer of Christ that we would be one. Not that we would be uniform. The lack of discourse on issues within a single group who thinks they have found "the truth" in all its facets is a breeding ground for error. It is in the diversity of opinion that we keep each other within the way. Only the very decidedly closed can wander too far astray. But as your position is that you have the truth and the only "unity," You are the most nearly destined for error. We may or may not have insignificant errors but are constantly reviewing. You are set and closed and have no way to consider your errors because you have turned you face from any who, while your brothers, have even the slightest difference of opinion.

We don't need to justify denominations from scripture any more than we need to justify driving automobiles. There may be walls, but they are walls of rhetoric, not walls of differing faith. Meanwhile, your walls are absolute. You only seek to evangelize the world for your way. Never consider how you may have wandered into error.

[Ohio]

This is a far more accurate assessment of church history than any which I heard from Nee or Lee.

I still find it amazing just how diverse the 7 churches in Asia were. If you look carefully at the map below, all 7 cities were naturally connected in valleys by roads and rivers, or by ship. None of these churches were geographically isolated or excessively remote. Within the Roman Empire, travel was actually quite good for the day. The 7 churches probably were on a travel circuit of the Apostles. Some have noted that this connecting "circuit" was in the shape of a rainbow, when viewed on the oblique.



Also, the shepherding of these 7 churches was firstly by Paul (the tent builder) and his co-workers, and then by John (the net mender) and his co-workers. Yet, reading these 7 epistles, they are quite diverse. Makes me wonder just how "one" they were with each other. Was Ephesus properly judging the false apostles in other churches, and did Smyrna suffer at the hands of those who hold the teaching of Balaam in Pergamos, we have no way to know.

Nee and Lee told us they were all identical, except for the negatives. Actually they were not identical in almost any way, and it is doubtful that some of these places even clung to the "seven ones" in Ephesus. Yet the Son of Man walked in the midst of these 7 golden lampstands. And remember that Paul, a generation earlier, even called Corinth "the church of God."

And the LSM acolytes here want us to believe that all a church needs to do is pick the right name, and btw it's worth suing others over in Gentile courts, and then all God's blessing will be on you. And you alone.

The Roman highways made it easier and safer to travel between cities but it still took awhile to walk from place to place. You'd have to think about it before starting that venture.

Churches in closer proximity to each other like Colosse, Laodicea, Hierapolis had more fellowship together and Paul requested the letters he wrote to each be read to the other.

In spite of their differences and circumstances they were viewed as a golden lampstand. They were identical in that way. And on the negative side they did not split up into many churches due to their differences so there were not several churches in Colosse or Laodicea.

[Ohio]

Yes, I agree with your points.

Supposedly, by having the "right" name, all these churches should have enjoyed God's best blessings. I don't see it.

Supposedly, by having the "wrong" name, all other churches should have enjoyed none of God's blessings. I don't see that either.

In fact, it was all the corruption within the LC's, both by the Blendeds during the '00 quarantines, and by Lee himself during the '90 quarantines, that caused me to leave. They have to fabricate "blessings" in order to keep the flock penned up. They have to maintain strict information control and smear campaigns to keep them believing the lies.

[Drake]

I agree with the point that just calling yourself "the church in ...." in and of itself does not bring the blessing of oneness if there is no real oneness.

On the other hand, calling your congregation the church of the mousekateers will not either.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree with the point that just calling yourself "the church in ...." in and of itself does not bring the blessing of oneness if there is no real oneness.
On the other hand, calling your congregation the church of the mousekateers will not either.

Drake,

Welcome aboard the discussion forum, officially.

Calling oneself the church in this or that doesn't necessitate God's blessing. Either The Church In Chicago or the First Baptist Church in Chicago. Certainly names can be a distraction. There is only one name, variously translated as Yeshua, Jesus, Hay'-soos, Iosoos, or whatnot.

But even gathering as The Church of Jesus (i.e. the "my church" of Matt 16:18) or conversely The Church of Christ doesn't guarantee anything. Nor does gathering in Meeting Hall A, B, and C. Or the College-age meeting at Sister Jones' House, or the Saturday Morning Prayer Meeting. And remember that if you want to be "by the book", the first century word for "meeting" was also ekklesia.

So the proliferation of denominations happened. The Great Schism of 1054 happened. The Council of Nicaea happened. Nee's return to the Year One pulled in a lot of people in the mainland China, who wanted the influence of the Foreign Devils to end (remember that the Boxer Rebellion was such an event in the lives of Nee and Lee's families, as in many, many Chinese Christians). And Lee's return to the Proper Church of the apostolic age pulled in a lot of seeking Jesus People who were tired of the same old, same old. But Nee's and Lee's solution is to me like Pol Pot taking over in Cambodia. Yes, Prince Sihanouk was corrupt, under the Western Powers, who were impinging upon the millennia-old Asian culture. But what was the result of Pol Pot's return to the Year Zero? The killing fields.

The local church of Lee was and is, for me, such a spiritual charnel house. I don't approve of denominations, but I accept them as a fact of history, and believe they're preferable to the alternative that Lee gave us. God is sovereign.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, the church was not so one, even in the first century. Paul had to take one to task for not even being one all by itself. And there was contention between the gentile and Jewish churches.

Following that, there was great dissention over things. Some of them we think of as significant errors, and others just differences in what we would now call the non-essentials. But those that wanted total and complete unity dictated the thinking through the councils and eventually through the wielding of authority granted by the government.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.

Yet you claim there was this wonderful unity from the beginning and going on for several centuries thereafter. I would not disagree that there was a tendency for uniformity within the primary groups. And do not say that was bad. But even you agree that the answer was not to still be within those ancient groups. Rather to find your way according to your conscience and understanding of scripture. You want it one way for your group, and the opposite for everyone else.

Unity is not simply in the EO, or RCC, or any other earlier group. It is found in Christ. And Christ is in all of us. It the prayer of Christ that we would be one. Not that we would be uniform. The lack of discourse on issues within a single group who thinks they have found "the truth" in all its facets is a breeding ground for error. It is in the diversity of opinion that we keep each other within the way. Only the very decidedly closed can wander too far astray. But as your position is that you have the truth and the only "unity," You are the most nearly destined for error. We may or may not have insignificant errors but are constantly reviewing. You are set and closed and have no way to consider your errors because you have turned you face from any who, while your brothers, have even the slightest difference of opinion.

We don't need to justify denominations from scripture any more than we need to justify driving automobiles. There may be walls, but they are walls of rhetoric, not walls of differing faith. Meanwhile, your walls are absolute. You only seek to evangelize the world for your way. Never consider how you may have wandered into error.

Yet we find that there were churches that were not affected by these things that continued all the way into this century. Churches that were separated from the others almost from the beginning.


These mysterious and hidden churches only exist in your imagination. They did not give us the doctrine of the Trinity, the canon of Scripture, the Nicene creed etc. Standards and uniformity were attempted since the beginning, they continue today in the fact that if a church does not believe in the Trinity they are not considered Christian (JW etc). Your Bible (the Canon) is standardised, your belief in the Trinity is thanks to uniformity and standardisation of a view about God.

You would speak against the attempts at uniformity and standardisation by the local churches yet ignore the fact that your faith today is somewhat due to past achievements in uniformity and standardisation of old.