One Church - One City - Biblical?

Trapped · 03-16-2019, 09:14 PM

(explanation up front: when I say "the church in [city]", I am not referring to the local churches).

Nell, I agree with you that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. "Do this until I come" or "and you do the same" could easily have been present in relation to describing the churches, but it glaringly wasn't.

But not only is it descriptive, I also think that it is still an objective fact today, albeit manifested in a different way than what was described in the Bible. I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible. Even though those house churches existed, in my view, it doesn't take away from the objective fact that on the city-level, the church in [city] is all the believers in that city, which includes the house churches and any other assemblies that met. The church in [house] describes a smaller level, and the church in [city] just describes a larger version of that thing.

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place. It is all the believers in Houston. In other words, it's not that there "should be" one church in Houston. There is right now. All the believers are the church in Houston. It's an objective fact, regardless of if a single one of those believers is aware of it. That's kind of what I was trying to say.

Maybe a better way to say it is that it is a mindset that we should have ("that they all may be one"). It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify). But if you want to see the actual expression of the church in [a city], it is just in our living and treating of each other and others.

Trapped · 03-17-2019, 01:56 AM

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

Cal · 03-17-2019, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

I agree with this. The church in the city is similar to the universal church, it is all the believers in that city. But the bible never says they all have to meet together, nor especially that they all have to be under one group of tightly coordinated leaders. The instance of house churches strongly suggests this.

This can be easily shown by simply asking "How do you determine who these leaders are?" The LR elders just say it's them, and that's it. Really? How does anyone really know? So, you just can't get to there from here, and so you have to give people the freedom to make up their own minds. It can't be forced, and certainly no one group of leaders gets to claim it exclusively.

And the Bible never, ever says that Christians have to meet "as" the church in the city. It only says we are to meet in Jesus' name. Period. Requiring that they meet "as" the church in the city to be the church and claim the realities of the church is a false teaching. Period.

It's absolutely absurd for any subset of the church in a city to say that Christians who don't meet with THEM are divisive. It's ridiculous and really should be laughed at.

Cal · 03-17-2019, 09:20 AM

Another issue is the false dichotomy of the Church and Ministry put forth by Nee and Lee. Churches and ministries are all part of the Church, but different manifestations of it. There are no realities of the Church which are not available to Christians within the context of a ministry.

This dichotomy Nee and Lee invented is actually a misreading of the FREEDOM that exists in the Church and the Body of Christ. Christians are free to serve God in ministry as they feel called. And it is all part of the Church. In like manner, Christians have the right to organize in churches as they see fit. If they are faithful to the Holy Spirit, exclusiveness and divisiveness will not become a problem, and proper receiving of all believers will be their experience, and oneness will be the result.

God has called us to freedom. The LR model is all about bondage. It's about control. It's about claiming exclusively for a subset of the Church what God has given to all of us, and is a major sin.

Ohio · 03-17-2019, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible.

Here is a link to that referenced post.

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

Quote:

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region, which sided with the Blendeds against Titus Chu. The divisions were all political in nature, rooted in offenses, using the Bible to endorse their skewed viewpoints.

Kevin · 03-19-2019, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is a link to that referenced post.

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Quote:

Unregistered Guest: 2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

Matthew 18:15-17, 20 NASB
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

That verse is taken out of context. Isn't the context of that passage about Church discipline than saying Jesus showing up or being "in our midst?" That church discipline is about keeping people IN the Church, but on God's terms and to the purity of the body.

Trapped · 05-16-2019, 10:53 PM

In Further Talks on the Church Life, Nee answers some questions about the church in a city and the church in a house:

Question: Some say that since Paul sent greetings to the church in Rome as well as to the church in a house, this signifies that there was not only a local church but also a church in a house. Are there not, therefore, two churches?

Answer: Let us consider the matter slowly. I fear that you have not listened to the word of God carefully. The book of Romans never speaks of “the church in Rome.” How then could the apostle have greeted the church in Rome? The book of Romans does not present clearly in writing one greeting to “the church in Rome” and another greeting to “the church in the house.” But in greeting the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila, it is implied that such a greeting is to the church in Rome, which was meeting in Prisca and Aquila’s house. Hence, the church in Rome was the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house.....

I think Nee's answer starts out pretty disingenuously to be honest. He begins by casting immediate doubt on the questioners reading skills, which is a sure sign some manipulation is coming. But if you read Romans, while it is true the explicit phrase "the church in Rome" isn't used, Romans 1:7 clearly says "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, the called saints". Who in earth is that if not the church in Rome?

So Romans is clearly to the church in Rome, whether or not that exact phrase is used. But Romans 16:3-5 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila......And greet the church, which is in their house."

Hold on. Why would a letter TO the church in Rome itself instruct them to greet the church in a house if the entire church in Rome met in that house (as Nee and Lee purport)?

That would be like writing a letter to the Johnson family and telling the Johnson family to greet the Johnson family. It doesn't make any sense. If you write a letter to someone and tell them to greet someone, by default, that second someone is in some way a different entity than the first someone.

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

ZNPaaneah · 05-17-2019, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

The interpretation of the "one church one city" as all the people in a single meeting hall is absurd and has no Biblical support. The church in Taipei had 26 meeting halls when I was there, so a single large meeting hall is not an item of our oneness. Paul gives 7 items for our oneness in Ephesians. The seven ones. Meeting hall and Elders are not mentioned.

But lets address the whole "one eldership" derivative argument as an expression of oneness. The elders are supposed to be local, there is no overarching organizational structure according to WN's interpretation and he is the only one putting forth this "one church one city" doctrine. Making the elders in all the 26 halls come under an umbrella organization is contrary to WN's entire construct.

Second, if you have the 7 ones in Ephesians then what could possibly cause you to not be one with another congregation with those 7 ones? Tell us the issue and we'll immediately see who is not one.

Third, they argue that the apostle laid hands on them, so they are under the apostle. You are creating a division. Surely they are not envisioning a single apostle that evangelizes the entire world over the last 2,000 years. Since we have multiple apostles how is it that we don't have multiple churches? Simple, apostle is not listed as one of the seven ones.

The value in WN's doctrine is that it forces us to see that the oneness of the church, the believers, and all those in a city is important, and it also forces us to go to the word to know the truth. If you can see the error in his teaching clearly then you have a clear vision of the oneness of the Body of Christ.

Ohio · 05-17-2019, 08:19 AM

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

ZNPaaneah · 05-17-2019, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

Yes, it is a bizarre derivative of Nee's teaching that puts a city council above the church elders. If Manhattan and Brooklyn decide to join and become one city then the churches in Manhattan and Brooklyn now need to also join under one eldership.

awareness · 05-17-2019, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

Hear !!! Hear !!!

I've repeated several times that, Nee went beyond scripture with his definition of OCOC. There's no such doctrine spelled out in the New Testament.

aron · 03-17-2019, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place... It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify).

Back in the day, I was in a meeting where the ministry mouthpiece did what was supposed to be a mic drop. They asked rhetorically, "If God was going to send a letter to a church in [the city] today, where would He send it?"

Like there was supposed to be an actual, tangible, physical street address, and since we [LC] have taken the ground of oneness, we have a real physical address where we "meet on the proper ground". I guess that was the point. Like, we in the LC can get the letter to the church in [the city]. That old old LC bugaboo - you just can't be "one" in principle, but you have to be one "practically".

Anyway, some not-so-bright brother or sister, who didn't realize that reading the actual text was bad form, asked, "But look! It doesn't say, 'To the church in [the city]', but 'To the angel of the church in [the city]'... what about that? Who is the angel?"

The reply was, "Oh, that's just the messenger. You don't need to pay any attention to that."

Right.

Revelation 1:1 "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,"

Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star."

Just ignore the angel, uhuh... besides, the angel probably knows the street address already! (Our street address!) Uh, yeah, okay... really weak argumentation if you ask me. On such tenuous reeds was built the LC edifice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region...

This brings up the obvious question: How many one-church-per-city churches can exist simultaneously in one city? More than one, apparently. Exclusive Brethren redux - when will we ever learn?

Cal · 03-17-2019, 05:52 PM

Perhaps he had to send it to an angel (messenger) precisely because there WAS NO ONE ADDRESS of the church in the city, and need a messenger to deliver it to all the places it needed to go. Hmmmmmm? Which would mean the text is actually making the counter argument to the LR argument, which is pretty funny!

I think just got another MOTA idea from the messenger, aron.

Ohio · 03-18-2019, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Perhaps he had to send it to an angel (messenger) precisely because there WAS NO ONE ADDRESS of the church in the city, and need a messenger to deliver it to all the places it needed to go. Hmmmmmm? Which would mean the text is actually making the counter argument to the LR argument, which is pretty funny!

Oh the irony!

Dismantling the House of Cards, one Joker at a time.

Cal · 03-18-2019, 07:46 AM

All good stuff, brothers and sisters!

Another problem with the idea "practical expression"--which is actually being brought out here but I want to clarify--is that it can become a weapon for discrediting everyone else. This is what the LR did. They simply defined "practical expression" in such a way so only they matched the definition. This definition centered around their view of "oneness," which was really nothing but conformity to their leaders.

Certainly there should be some "practical expression" of the church, if by that you mean, as the Bible states, works that show our faith. But not if by "practical expression" you mean an organization which holds to a version of oneness defined so particularly that it can be used to discredit 99.99% of the Christians in the world.

Ohio · 03-18-2019, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

All good stuff, brothers and sisters!

Another problem with the idea "practical expression"--which is actually being brought out here but I want to clarify--is that it can become a weapon for discrediting everyone else. This is what the LR did. They simply defined "practical expression" in such a way so only they matched the definition. This definition centered around their view of "oneness," which was really nothing but conformity to their leaders.

I remember one "crisis" moment. The elders were gone to headquarters, and I was left responsible for the Lord's Day meeting. After the Table, of course, the meeting was open to all for "prophesying." Things went quite well until an out-of-town LC guest stood, and questioned whether or not we used the Holy Word for Morning Revival.

There was a momentary panic in my heart. The room went silent. How should I answer? The elders were gone. If I say "no," then this visitor will become an undercover agent to report us back to Anaheim. We lived in days of suspicion and spying about one another's adherence to the oneness, which was really "oneness with a ministry," or oneness with man. We had such "spies" within and without. (Eventually some of our own saints even turned on us.)

Then the Lord came through. He put a thought in my heart. I smiled and looked at the guest and said, "sure, we use that too." The guest was satisfied apparently, and life continued. I had succeeded in kicking the phony "practical oneness" can down the street. Only to be revisited again. And again.

Cal · 03-18-2019, 08:13 AM

The LR has never recognized any church which met as the church in the city which did not join the fold of the LR. This shows that the local ground is really just a "first line of defense" in discrediting groups. The second line of defense is saying the church "is not in fellowship" with other LCs, which really means not submitting to LSM. So basically their view is if you don't follow LSM you can't be a church. As Trapped said, wrapped your head around that for a minute!

As Ohio has brought out many times, the local ground is really not a huge deal in the LR anymore. Conformity to LSM has replaced it as the key factor in being a proper church. The local ground is just a leftover teaching which the LR conveniently uses to convince members that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But the crucial factor now is obedience to LSM, which is proven by the fact that the LR has never respected any group meeting as the church in a city which doesn't genuflect to LSM.

03-16-2019, 09:14 PM	#1
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? (explanation up front: when I say "the church in [city]", I am not referring to the local churches). Nell, I agree with you that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. "Do this until I come" or "and you do the same" could easily have been present in relation to describing the churches, but it glaringly wasn't. But not only is it descriptive, I also think that it is still an objective fact today, albeit manifested in a different way than what was described in the Bible. I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible. Even though those house churches existed, in my view, it doesn't take away from the objective fact that on the city-level, the church in [city] is all the believers in that city, which includes the house churches and any other assemblies that met. The church in [house] describes a smaller level, and the church in [city] just describes a larger version of that thing. The church in Houston exists at this very moment, and it is not on MLK Boulevard (or wherever). It is not one group of people in one specific place. It is all the believers in Houston. In other words, it's not that there "should be" one church in Houston. There is right now. All the believers are the church in Houston. It's an objective fact, regardless of if a single one of those believers is aware of it. That's kind of what I was trying to say. Maybe a better way to say it is that it is a mindset that we should have ("that they all may be one"). It is not.......I don't know what the word is...tangible? You can't necessarily point to it - "the church in Houston is right over there". It just is (in the divine realm, if you want me to use an LC-type phrase to try to clarify). But if you want to see the actual expression of the church in [a city], it is just in our living and treating of each other and others.

03-17-2019, 01:56 AM	#2
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it's legit not as a practice, but as the understanding of a spiritual reality.

03-17-2019, 09:20 AM	#4
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? Another issue is the false dichotomy of the Church and Ministry put forth by Nee and Lee. Churches and ministries are all part of the Church, but different manifestations of it. There are no realities of the Church which are not available to Christians within the context of a ministry. This dichotomy Nee and Lee invented is actually a misreading of the FREEDOM that exists in the Church and the Body of Christ. Christians are free to serve God in ministry as they feel called. And it is all part of the Church. In like manner, Christians have the right to organize in churches as they see fit. If they are faithful to the Holy Spirit, exclusiveness and divisiveness will not become a problem, and proper receiving of all believers will be their experience, and oneness will be the result. God has called us to freedom. The LR model is all about bondage. It's about control. It's about claiming exclusively for a subset of the Church what God has given to all of us, and is a major sin.

05-16-2019, 10:53 PM	#7
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? In Further Talks on the Church Life, Nee answers some questions about the church in a city and the church in a house: Question: Some say that since Paul sent greetings to the church in Rome as well as to the church in a house, this signifies that there was not only a local church but also a church in a house. Are there not, therefore, two churches? Answer: Let us consider the matter slowly. I fear that you have not listened to the word of God carefully. The book of Romans never speaks of “the church in Rome.” How then could the apostle have greeted the church in Rome? The book of Romans does not present clearly in writing one greeting to “the church in Rome” and another greeting to “the church in the house.” But in greeting the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila, it is implied that such a greeting is to the church in Rome, which was meeting in Prisca and Aquila’s house. Hence, the church in Rome was the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house..... I think Nee's answer starts out pretty disingenuously to be honest. He begins by casting immediate doubt on the questioners reading skills, which is a sure sign some manipulation is coming. But if you read Romans, while it is true the explicit phrase "the church in Rome" isn't used, Romans 1:7 clearly says "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, the called saints". Who in earth is that if not the church in Rome? So Romans is clearly to the church in Rome, whether or not that exact phrase is used. But Romans 16:3-5 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila......And greet the church, which is in their house." Hold on. Why would a letter TO the church in Rome itself instruct them to greet the church in a house if the entire church in Rome met in that house (as Nee and Lee purport)? That would be like writing a letter to the Johnson family and telling the Johnson family to greet the Johnson family. It doesn't make any sense. If you write a letter to someone and tell them to greet someone, by default, that second someone is in some way a different entity than the first someone. I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

05-17-2019, 08:19 AM	#9
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city." There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT. The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it. As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that? __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

03-17-2019, 05:52 PM	#13
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? Perhaps he had to send it to an angel (messenger) precisely because there WAS NO ONE ADDRESS of the church in the city, and need a messenger to deliver it to all the places it needed to go. Hmmmmmm? Which would mean the text is actually making the counter argument to the LR argument, which is pretty funny! I think just got another MOTA idea from the messenger, aron.

03-18-2019, 07:46 AM	#15
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? All good stuff, brothers and sisters! Another problem with the idea "practical expression"--which is actually being brought out here but I want to clarify--is that it can become a weapon for discrediting everyone else. This is what the LR did. They simply defined "practical expression" in such a way so only they matched the definition. This definition centered around their view of "oneness," which was really nothing but conformity to their leaders. Certainly there should be some "practical expression" of the church, if by that you mean, as the Bible states, works that show our faith. But not if by "practical expression" you mean an organization which holds to a version of oneness defined so particularly that it can be used to discredit 99.99% of the Christians in the world.

03-18-2019, 08:13 AM	#17
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: One Church - One City - Biblical? The LR has never recognized any church which met as the church in the city which did not join the fold of the LR. This shows that the local ground is really just a "first line of defense" in discrediting groups. The second line of defense is saying the church "is not in fellowship" with other LCs, which really means not submitting to LSM. So basically their view is if you don't follow LSM you can't be a church. As Trapped said, wrapped your head around that for a minute! As Ohio has brought out many times, the local ground is really not a huge deal in the LR anymore. Conformity to LSM has replaced it as the key factor in being a proper church. The local ground is just a leftover teaching which the LR conveniently uses to convince members that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But the crucial factor now is obedience to LSM, which is proven by the fact that the LR has never respected any group meeting as the church in a city which doesn't genuflect to LSM.