Reading the Bible does not Give us the Spirit

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Well consider two scenarios then ...

(1) Perhaps they were experiencing the Spirit and He led them out of the LC's.

(2) Perhaps they were not experiencing the Spirit and they figured they had enough of the LC's.

So much for all the false promises of the Spirit and life exclusive to the Recovery.

God does not lead people out of fellowship with the genuine local church. There is no example in the Bible of anyone being led out of a church by the Spirit. Can you find one? I can't. The only "church" that God calls us to leave is the Babylonian worldly mixture of denominations.

So it must be option (2).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God does not lead people out of fellowship with the genuine local church. There is no example in the Bible of anyone being led out of a church by the Spirit. Can you find one? I can't. The only "church" that God calls us to leave is the Babylonian worldly mixture of denominations.

So it must be option (2).

That's like saying Jesus never led any Jews out of Judaism. Show me one example in the O.T.

The Lord has led many out of the LC's. That's just something you are going to have to accept. Start with the posters on this forum. They will tell you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying Jesus never led any Jews out of Judaism. Show me one example in the O.T.

The Lord has led many out of the LC's. That's just something you are going to have to accept. Start with the posters on this forum. They will tell you.

I can accept their belief that the Lord led them out. However based upon the Bible I don't have to accept that it was the Lord.

There are also people who claim the Lord led them to be married despite the fact they were divorced or gay etc. Or lead them to separate from their husband or wife without any biblical reason.

Consider Moses, he came down from that mountain and saw the people of God doing all kinds of crazy things. According to your view he might have said, sorry guys, I'm going to find another group of God's chosen people, I feel the Lord leading me out. But he didn't. There is no example in the OT or NT of God leading someone out of his nation (Israel) or church.

Jesus never lead anyone out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew when he died, and his disciples were also Jews. In fact Jesus did not call the "elites" of Judaism, the Pharisees etc, he called fishermen etc to follow him. He never told anyone they had to leave Judaism.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no example in the OT or NT of God leading someone out of his nation (Israel) or church.

Therein lies the problem. You equate the church with Israel in every aspect. But when it comes to the idea of being "led out," we are not talking about being led out of the church, but being led out of an assembly or a group of assemblies. You clearly have no problem with that. You ask everyone else to leave their assembly to come to yours. But you wouldn't even consider the same about leaving yours. You "know" that it is the only one.

So, if it had turned out that the little church group in the general vicinity of San Francisco that was led by Jim Jones had been a bona fide "church in a city" as Mr. Jones began his slow slide into being something that no longer resembled a sound gathering of Christ's followers, you would have refused to leave?? You would have been all over that. You would have left in a heartbeat.

You speak of church alternately in the universal sense and then in the sense of an assembly of believers without qualification. It is an exercise in equivocation. You want to declare that believers who are not part of your assembly are not part of the universal church. But you dare not say that because the universal church is not assemblies, but the believers. It is little different from saying "church" is not buildings but people. Same goes for assemblies. The church is the people, not the assemblies. But it is expressed in assemblies. And there is no formula for what that looks like. And all the accounts in Acts and all those letters by Paul, Peter, John and others demonstrate the diversity of expression, even if you read past the things that might have been problems that caused the letter in the first place. The cure was never to be just like "the church in X." It was to recognize that we are called to something higher than better teachers, ritual laws, three-ring circus meetings, and so on. But the cure was never to be just like another assembly. It was to recognize that Christ provided a different way in love. Not in lording it over people. Or in better works in hope of salvation. Or anything else. It was just in the belief and faith in Jesus Christ and the living that bears his image on the earth.

You complain that we spend so much time complaining about the LRC and its teachings and ways. But if you listen, you will recognize that it is not so that you would drop all of that and simply go our way. In the important sense, we all, including you, are going the same direction. We believe 4that salvation is only in Christ. We believe in the basic tenets of the faith. And beyond that, we probably have as many variations in understanding of the other things as there are people here. That includes each separate current member of the LRC that comes and participates or even just lurks. They don't all think the same thing. They dare not admit that they don't. But they don't. There are a myriad of variations in understanding of many things within your group. They dare not speak about it because there is a clear history of silencing any sign of variation.

But it is there.

The problem is that you insist that one church one city is effectively among the fundamentals of the faith. Failure to follow this rule results in your group's effective "washing of the hands" with respect to them. But there is no such imperative of the faith. Our goal isn't necessarily to insist that you drop your belief in this formula. Only that you admit that it may not be as you understand it, and that even if it is, it does not define a Christian as somehow deficient. It is so interesting that your group effectively dreamed up this little rule in the 1900s and then argued it as being there for centuries even though not even mentioned by a single apostle as anything approaching a rule.

There is a chance that one church per city is a rule. But given the pains that the Bible goes to in spelling-out so many clearly important things, it seems almost ludicrous that something that should be raised to the level of a "tenet of the faith" would be couched in such veiled terms that it took 1900 years for someone to realize that it was there and was so blinkin important.

With that as the background, you have to understand why it is that despite throwing out references where it says "the church in [city]" that there has never been anyone consider that this meant that only the boundary of a city should define the contents of an assembly. A word that by its very usage clearly means "Christians" because they are the body of Christ suddenly has to mean "assembly." Why? "Because I think it does."

There is a huge body of Christians in this world. It is far from a majority of the population. Even in America. But it is immensely larger than the meager group that calls itself "THE church" and dismisses all others. We are not cutting your off from fellowship with the larger body of Christ. You are. You insist on it. You insist that the right little toe is all that is needed. There is no need for the rest of the toes, or feet or other "body" parts. The church is so much more. You have settled for a toe and are busy using self-congratulatory phrases over and over to keep yourselves pumped up so you won't think about how poor and naked and blind you are as an amputated little toe.

I don't condemn you to hell for that. I implore you to drop your need for being special and segregating yourselves into the LRC. Join the whole of the church. You can keep your beliefs, but in the understanding that they are nonessentials.

The only true essential is Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God does not lead people out of fellowship with the genuine local church. There is no example in the Bible of anyone being led out of a church by the Spirit. Can you find one? I can't. The only "church" that God calls us to leave is the Babylonian worldly mixture of denominations.

So it must be option (2).

Well, I decided to revisit. I see Evangelical is still up to his shenanigans.

Anyway, EV, hope you are doing well.

Your statements above are typical of the LC mindset because, although they are are consistent in themselves, they are based on false premises.

You say God would never lead someone out of fellowship with a genuine local church. But you don't define "fellowship." More importantly you don't define a "genuine local church," and you can't because the Bible never differentiates between local and other kinds of churches, nor does it differentiate between "genuine" or "false" churches. We do not know if there is such thing as a "false" church, since the Bible never defines or cites such a thing. We can look at the extreme example of "Babylon," but we really don't know what Babylon is for sure. LCers believe it is the RCC. But it may just represent a generally corrupt and worldly religious view. When the Bible doesn't clearly define a idea, it is probably teaching us about a general principle, rather than an actual thing. I agree that the city churches in the Bible show us that unity is important. I disagree that they show us that churches must be organized around the borders of a city. If the Bible wanted us to believe that as bad as you do it would have told us to.

So "genuine local church" sounds good, but it is really a useless and probably destructive term. The Bible doesn't give you enough information to genuinely (ahem) and confidently define it. You cannot know for sure if any church is really such a thing. It's just words and puffery. This is why your posts on the subject have the ring of arrogance and condescension. If you were really confident in your beliefs you could afford to be gracious and generous about them. Since you don't you exhibit hardness.

The extremes are easy. The New Jerusalem or Babylon. But most of us don't live in the extremes. We live in the real world where calling an assembly of Christians a "non-genuine church" is a reckless thing to do. I admire LCer's desire for purity, but I don't admire the way they go about it. You can't be a church God approves of based on an obscure Biblical technicality. There are so many things much more important than that. Jesus said so in Matthew 23:23, if you care to read it. The local ground as espoused by you is not about justice, mercy and faithfulness. It's about mint, dill and cumin. It's about focusing on gnats while ignoring the camel dung piling up around you.

Jesus asks us to do something that is very much against our nature. He asks us to even (sometimes) not act like we are right even when we think we are. This is what really bring loves and unity. Most times when we think we are standing up for the truth we are really standing up for ourselves. It's a delicate thing. It's very easy to condemn others, but hard to be honest with ourselves. If you cheat the man in the mirror you've gained nothing.

[OBW]

Evangelical,

Igzy just said some very profound things. Some of them are worthy of restatement. These are from the previous post, though I have separated parts to make them stand out, and left some out.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You say God would never lead someone out of fellowship with a genuine local church. But you don't define "fellowship."

More importantly you don't define a "genuine local church," and you can't because the Bible never differentiates between local and other kinds of churches, nor does it differentiate between "genuine" or "false" churches.

We do not know if there is such thing as a "false" church, since the Bible never defines or cites such a thing.

We can look at the extreme example of "Babylon," but we really don't know what Babylon is for sure. LCers believe it is the RCC. But it may just represent a generally corrupt and worldly religious view. When the Bible doesn't clearly define a idea, it is probably teaching us about a general principle, rather than an actual thing. I agree that the city churches in the Bible show us that unity is important. I disagree that they show us that churches must be organized around the borders of a city. If the Bible wanted us to believe that as bad as you do it would have told us to.

So "genuine local church" sounds good, but it is really a useless and probably destructive term. The Bible doesn't give you enough information to genuinely (ahem) and confidently define it. You cannot know for sure if any church is really such a thing. It's just words and puffery. This is why your posts on the subject have the ring of arrogance and condescension. If you were really confident in your beliefs you could afford to be gracious and generous about them. Since you don't you exhibit hardness.

. . . .

There are so many things much more important than that. Jesus said so in Matthew 23:23, if you care to read it. The local ground as espoused by you is not about justice, mercy and faithfulness. It's about mint, dill and cumin. It's about focusing on gnats while ignoring the camel dung piling up around you.

Jesus asks us to do something that is very much against our nature. He asks us to even (sometimes) not act like we are right even when we think we are. This is what really bring loves and unity. Most times when we think we are standing up for the truth we are really standing up for ourselves. It's a delicate thing. It's very easy to condemn others, but hard to be honest with ourselves. If you cheat the man in the mirror you've gained nothing.

In the midst of this he made the following statement.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You can't be a church God approves of based on an obscure Biblical technicality.

I know what he means, but I think that he was more than generous to you in it. I do not believe that there is any obscure technicality. Rather there is an obscure statement that if its meaning is among the more unlikely candidates it would be a technicality. Because it is not clearly stated, and not even a front-runner among understandings of what was said, it cannot be declared to be a technicality, therefore not "Biblical" because that term should only be used in reference to things that are so clearly stated and understood that it is the general consensus that it is true. Any other use of the term Biblical is merely packaging to attempt to stop any discussion that it might not be correct.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the midst of this he made the following statement.

You can't be a church God approves of based on an obscure Biblical technicality.

I know what he means, but I think that he was more than generous to you in it. I do not believe that there is any obscure technicality. Rather there is an obscure statement that if its meaning is among the more unlikely candidates it would be a technicality. Because it is not clearly stated, and not even a front-runner among understandings of what was said, it cannot be declared to be a technicality, therefore not "Biblical" because that term should only be used in reference to things that are so clearly stated and understood that it is the general consensus that it is true. Any other use of the term Biblical is merely packaging to attempt to stop any discussion that it might not be correct.

I agree. My point was not that the local ground itself is Biblical, but rather that if one is to assert that it is, one must also admit it is (1) a technicality and (2) obscure. It's a technicality in the same way legally insisting on "holy kisses", "love feasts" or "laying everything at the apostles feet" would be technicalities--they are things the Bible cites the early church as doing but doesn't command us to do. The local ground is obscure because down through history the teaching has not been embraced but by a tiny handful of Christians.

As I said, when the Bible gives us examples, but doesn't make totally clear their meaning or directly command us to imitate them, then it is probably showing us general principles of behavior rather than expecting exact imitation. Thus "holy kisses" need only tell us to be comfortable with open and pure affection for one another. "Love feasts" can mean we can and should gather in social situations that give love a chance to shine.

City churches should tell us that unity is important, but not that churches must be organized based on the borders of a city. The citation of house churches in the Bible leaves a reasonable door open to other grounds of organization rather than city borders, so insisting otherwise is unreasonable. I have no problem with all the Christians in a city realizing they are all part of the church in that city, just as they realize they are part of the universal church. That's a good thing. But to insist that we can only meet as the church in that city or, even worse, must organize around a group of leaders who claim to be the leaders of the entire city church (how they know this or why anyone should believe them is not clear) is taking things way too far. The Bible never comes close to commanding such a thing, and it is easy to see why not. One should think if the local ground is the important principle the LC would like everyone to believe it is then the Bible would have unmistakably commanded us to uphold it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...If the Bible wanted us to believe that as bad as you do it would have told us to.

Hi Igzy, am well thank you, hope you are too - grace to you and peace in the Lord Jesus.

This topic is related to the discussion had in the other thread where we talked about descriptive versus prescriptive commands in the Bible.
I agree there is no clear prescriptive command in the Bible that a church must be organized around a city. There is no black and white text that says this is how the church must be done.

In the book of Acts we see a lot of things that were not clearly written down as an instruction or a command. There was no Old Testament command that says "Christians don't have to be circumcised". The early Christians followed Christ. They followed Christ out of the Jewish synagogues and into the church. Christ forming the church was not clearly foretold by the OT prophets. The first time church was mentioned was Matt. 16:18. Had a person followed the Scripture at that time, they might have stayed in the Jewish synagogues. Just like the early Christians followed Christ out of Judaism, we try to follow Christ out of religious Christianity. We don't do this because there is a black and white command in the Bible to do so (well there is, if we consider Babylon), but because of the leading of the Lord. The important thing is that we follow the Lord. We believe that if the Lord leads one to the denominations then do that, if the Lord leads one out, then do that, if the Lord leads one to stay at home and not go to church, then do that too. This does not mean, however, that the denominations are approved by God, anymore than Jesus meeting with the Pharisees meant they were approved by God.

The idea of one city per church is meant to be about freedom from the religious institutions. If we leave "Babylon", believers in each city is what remains. That is, it is more about coming out of Babylon, than entering any particular thing called the "One City Per Church" church. We are not about building up another denomination in the name of a doctrine of one city per church. I know that is contrary to what many claim and experience, but this no way invalidates the ideals or God's plan.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the book of Acts we see a lot of things that were not clearly written down as an instruction or a command. There was no Old Testament command that says "Christians don't have to be circumcised". The early Christians followed Christ. They followed Christ out of the Jewish synagogues and into the church. Christ forming the church was not clearly foretold by the OT prophets. The first time church was mentioned was Matt. 16:18. Had a person followed the Scripture at that time, they might have stayed in the Jewish synagogues. Just like the early Christians followed Christ out of Judaism, we try to follow Christ out of religious Christianity. We don't do this because there is a black and white command in the Bible to do so (well there is, if we consider Babylon), but because of the leading of the Lord. The important thing is that we follow the Lord. We believe that if the Lord leads one to the denominations then do that, if the Lord leads one out, then do that, if the Lord leads one to stay at home and not go to church, then do that too. This does not mean, however, that the denominations are approved by God, anymore than Jesus meeting with the Pharisees meant they were approved by God.

The idea of one city per church is meant to be about freedom from the religious institutions. If we leave "Babylon", believers in each city is what remains. That is, it is more about coming out of Babylon, than entering any particular thing called the "One City Per Church" church. We are not about building up another denomination in the name of a doctrine of one city per church. I know that is contrary to what many claim and experience, but this no way invalidates the ideals or God's plan.

I was with you until this statement, "Just like the early Christians followed Christ out of Judaism, we try to follow Christ out of religious Christianity."

Let me comment on this. Your construct here is not from the Bible but from Lee and exclusivism.

Firstly, you say "religious Christianity." Let's be honest, for you this is any and all Christians outside of LSM approved LC's, including the GLA LC's who refused to be brought under their subjection. This comment becomes the most divisive belief of all, because it contains no specifics whatsoever. You simply categorize all outsiders, including those quarantined, as "religious Christianity," so that you can dismiss them and condemn them. Oh the arrogance.

The early Christians departed from the leadership of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin because they killed their Savior, and then persecuted them. They never "followed Christ out of Judaism." On the contrary, the entire early church, including the 3 thousand and the 5 thousand, remained in Judaism, albeit with their Messiah. They met in the temple and house to house, with most of them never leaving the decrees of Moses. It was not until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that Christians became basically liberated from the ordinances of the law. Oh the historical revisionism.

Secondly, since my time in the LC's which began in the mid '70's, I have watched an exodus of dear believers being led out of the Recovery due to corruption at LSM. Living through one scandal after another at LSM, life in the LC's was like living in America when the Clinton's were in power. After each round of whistle-blowers were expelled, leadership at LSM cranked up their smear machine in order to hold the remaining faithful in the delusional cloud of a pure and pristine MOTA, who was as infallible as the Pope. Oh the deception.

For LSM to manufacture numerous false standards (one city one church, clergy laity, proper church name which supposedly is not a name, etc.) in order to condemn all others and justify their own existence, is no different than the Pharisees who attempted to kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. (John 5.16) Oh the hypocrisy.

[Evangelical]

To the contrary, your construct of "everything and anything goes" where it concerns the church, is not really from the Bible.

I use the term religious Christianity as per the book Christ versus Religion by Lee. I did not have LSM in mind when I said that.

[Ohio]

LSM is the publisher of the book Christ versus Religion.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles condemned religion. Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but never assaulted their entire religion as Lee does.

Evangelical, why do you constantly condemn the entire body of Christ, yet never address the blatant hypocrisy at LSM. What you do is just the opposite of what the Lord did.

[Cal]

If I thought for a second that God was backing your words I might be intimidated. But as far as I'm concerned you are only expressing your personal religious opinion. Perhaps well-meaning, but ultimately I don't hear God in your interpretation and attitude.

[Evangelical]

Entirely subjective on your part of course. You will observe, hopefully, that between the both of us, I am using Bible verses, and you are not. God will back His own words that I quote from the Bible. I think that if or when you can find some bible verses supporting the idea of many denominations, you may have God's backing.

[Cal]

The devil can quote scripture, as can you.

[Cal]

Let me illustrate by way of analogy. I'm sure most of you have heard of Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous "church" which was led by its late leader, Fred Phelps, into a spirit of hate, exhibited by his catchphrase "God hates fags." Westboroans would do things like picket the funerals of fallen soldiers and mock them for dying for evil America.

Here is the slogan from the Westboro website:

"God hates fags. God hates fag-enablers. Therefore, God hates america and this doomed world."

Phelps died a couple of years ago. He maintained his arrogant assurance to his grave. But as repulsive as his stance was, there was a certain logic to it. Logic, but ultimately such a twisted logic that calling him anti-Christ is not much of a stretch.

I'm sure some think their condemnation of "Christianity" and "division" is logical and justifiable, as Phelps did.

Just be careful you don't fall into his spirit.

[Cal]

Luke 18:10-14

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

doubt you've ever asked the Lord whether He approves of Catholicism, for example. I doubt you've bothered to hear His answer. You certainly have not found it in His written Word. Can you find a verse that supports Catholicism?

I've prayed about the whole matter of unity and the situation as it is in the Church as a whole. My sense and experience is although I can find fault with the overarching leadership of movements, it's very hard for me to condemn individual congregations. I've been to several Catholic services in the last few years, as many in my family are Catholic. My experience is that the members are sincere believers. I may not agree with every aspect of their belief or practice, but Romans 12 tells me that is none of my business. As for idols, you might be surprised how little such things mean to modern Catholics. Many of my Catholic family and friend have sincere, solid saving faith. They are believers. I can't argue with that. I attend their services and the emphasis is not on idols, many Catholic congregations don't even display such things anymore. It would be foolish to nitpick about such things when I clearly see a trend away from them. What would be the point?

Trust me, I think the trappings of the Vatican and ex cathedra and all that rot make me sick. But what's coming out of Rome is not what's important. What's important is what is being taught in individual Catholic congregations. If people are hearing the gospel and the truth of Jesus as Savior then that's what important. Don't make the good the enemy of the best.

I know you refer to the Bible, but on this topic of denominations you cannot find a verse to support your view that denominations are acceptable. When you say denominations are acceptable you are saying that Babylon is acceptable. You are saying that Roman Catholicism is acceptable with all of its idols and various things (Catholicism is the major denomination, remember).

It is you that cannot definitively find a verses that says denominations are so bad that you need to rail about them as you do. You are the one who equated denominations with "Babylon." The Bible record is less clear. I advise against feigning certainly when in fact you don't have it. You are talking about God's people.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why do you not apply that to the pastors and members of that different church next door?

If the differences are nonessential then how do they justify their continued existence? After Luther accomplished his split from RC, why did the Lutherans not disband and join the next best improved one?Maintaining different organisations/denominations because of nonessential differences is a reason why they cannot no longer justify their existence. If they are not so divided why do they continue to exist?

I have been to multi-faith services before where every denomination gets there turn. It looks like unity from the outside but actually it is the unity of agreement. They still maintain their denominational identities.

The early church probably quibbled over nonessentials, but if they did Paul would not have told them to separate and form different denominations.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no good reason why the Lutheran church for example had to exist just because Luther recovered the truth that we are saved by faith alone. Today, everyone knows salvation is by faith alone and we do not need the Lutheran church to tell us that. But they still exist today, 500 years later, why?

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Entirely subjective on your part of course. You will observe, hopefully, that between the both of us, I am using Bible verses, and you are not. God will back His own words that I quote from the Bible. I think that if or when you can find some bible verses supporting the idea of many denominations, you may have God's backing.

Peter speaks of false teachers and mockers who quote and twist the scriptures. (II Peter 3.) When I was in the LC's, I heard many messages from Anaheim which "employed" scriptural support which was not at all pertinent to their teachings. Supposedly Lee and his Blendeds could "see things we could not." Uh huh!

And, by the way, the so-called "heretic" Titus Chu was always more knowledgeable and restricted to the Bible than Anaheim ever was. I never heard him condemn all of Christianity.

So much for much of the scripture you write. It really does not support your teachings or practices.

You love to condemn all the churches which identify themselves with a name, saying there is no verse to support them.

Yet you justify the hundreds of names LSM uses, saying it is a ministry and not a church. That is most hypocritical. Where is the scriptural support for these ministry names? There is none.

What legal entity (DCP) or attack publication (A&C) did the apostles ever startup?