'Ground of the Church'

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bradley

My conclusion now of course is that there is no ground, or any one true church, and that its all BS. But the hypocrisy still bothers me.

Bradley, your experience has been the same as many others. For example, "the church of the Torontonians" was legitimized by LSM since the preferred name was already taken. During the Midwest quarantines, LSM operatives helped local loyalists to file lawsuits for real estate, assets, and THE NAME.

Tell me again about that church with no name filing lawsuits over names!

This is why I don't like to waste time discussing their ground of oneness teaching. They only use it to condemn all others. They never abide by these teachings themselves, but have a long history of breaking the rules.

I prefer to respond as the Lord Jesus did to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees -- expose it and rebuke it. The disciples were also greatly bothered by the Pharisee hypocrisy, but in time they got over it by spending time with Jesus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

[B]This is why I don't like to waste time discussing their ground of oneness teaching. They only use it to condemn all others. They never abide by these teachings themselves, but have a long history of breaking the rules.

But that is the reason I think this teaching is the most important to talk about. It is the central pillar to the LRC sect. If it falls they fall. Without this pillar WN's claim to MOTA falls. If his claim to MOTA falls WL's claim falls. Without the "Ground of the Church" and without WN and WL as MOTA, what does the LRC have?

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked:

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But that is the reason I think this teaching is the most important to talk about. It is the central pillar to the LRC sect. If it falls they fall. Without this pillar WN's claim to MOTA falls. If his claim to MOTA falls WL's claim falls. Without the "Ground of the Church" and without WN and WL as MOTA, what does the LRC have?

Hehe I *love* this. You're quite right. The 'ground' is the one thing that makes them 'God's move' and makes everyone else irrelevant to it. When you take away the ground, what do you have?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bradley, your experience has been the same as many others. For example, "the church of the Torontonians" was legitimized by LSM since the preferred name was already taken. During the Midwest quarantines, LSM operatives helped local loyalists to file lawsuits for real estate, assets, and THE NAME.

When "The Church of the Torontonians" stopped following LSM, they then took their current name, "The Local Church in Toronto."

It's hard to keep track...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

When "The Church of the Torontonians" stopped following LSM, they then took their current name, "The Local Church in Toronto."

It's hard to keep track...

Little correction here ...

Original "church in Toronto" is here. They claim to be "THE church in Toronto." Not sure of their affiliation.

IIRC, "The Church of the Torontonians" was taken back in the early 70's. That church now has the website here. They have become a truly "local" church, a community church, no longer attached to headquarters in either Anaheim or Cleveland. I would consider them one of the healthiest LC spin-offs. Nigel Tomes, who has written a number of articles on this forum, is there.

After the recent division, the LSMers took the name "the local church in Toronto." Note that their website, their sign, and their legal names don't necessarily have to coincide. They are nothing more than an LSM franchise.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Little correction here ...

Original "church in Toronto" is here. They claim to be "THE church in Toronto." Not sure of their affiliation.

IIRC, "The Church of the Torontonians" was taken back in the early 70's. That church now has the website here. They have become a truly "local" church, a community church, no longer attached to headquarters in either Anaheim or Cleveland. I would consider them one of the healthiest LC spin-offs. Nigel Tomes, who has written a number of articles on this forum, is there.

After the recent division, the LSMers took the name "the local church in Toronto." Note that their website, their sign, and their legal names don't necessarily have to coincide. They are nothing more than an LSM franchise.

The church in your first link is associated with John So.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The church in your first link is associated with John So.

They must have connected with him in the 80's after he left LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Original "church in Toronto" is here. They claim to be "THE church in Toronto." Not sure of their affiliation.

IIRC, "The Church of the Torontonians" was taken back in the early 70's. That church now has the website here. They have become a truly "local" church, a community church, no longer attached to headquarters in either Anaheim or Cleveland. I would consider them one of the healthiest LC spin-offs. Nigel Tomes, who has written a number of articles on this forum, is there.

After the recent division, the LSMers took the name "the local church in Toronto." Note that their website, their sign, and their legal names don't necessarily have to coincide. They are nothing more than an LSM franchise.

Originally Posted by aron

The Church in Sydney, whichever its version (affiliation), is no more a local church than the Parish of the Lady of Our Way in North Sydney or St. Peter's Presbyterian Church. And if you look at the demographic that it appeals to, and fronts, it's perhaps less a reflection of the local populace than they are. So why call it a local church? (Besides that this is its only reason to exist, of course)

The LC apologist says, "It is not a name, but a description". But that is fantasy. The term "local church" is not in any way a description of the assembled group. With them, non-local affiliation (Titus Chu, Blendeds, DYL) is paramount to identity and culture. Without this affiliation they simply don't know who they are.

But TC probably doesn't care if the Church in Sydney is 90% Chinese and quite non-reflective of the local population that it supposedly represents, as long as it's 100% submissive to his non-local ministry.

And I've no problems with the Chinese. Their culture is arguably more ancient and venerable than mine (European). I wish as well for all to be saved and come to a full knowledge of the truth. But joining a variant of the Chinese Church of Witness Lee is not the way. Jesus Christ is the way.