Caljust's Objections / The local church

Originally posted by CalJust

This is a long post and will require time to digest. Thankyou for taking the long time to outline you thoughts. Give me time in a few posts to reply to your ideas before you challenge me with new ones. I will need several posts to catch up with you.

Firstly, Christianity is NOT a denomination, but a form of religion (for lack of a better word). It is generally recognized as containing MANY different sub-groups, some large and some small, and some such larger sub-groups (especially Pentecostalism) having itself many sub-groups. But to call christianity a denomination is simply wrong.

The misunderstanding is partly my fault. The phrase I meant to use was not "denominition Christianity" but "denominatioNAL Christianity".

That is what I intended to write and made a typo leaving off nal from "denomination". I am speaking of the practice of dividing the Christians into divisions or denominations. I assume that you were seeking the genuine Christian unity apart from "denominatioNAL Christianity."

Other faiths, such as Buddhism and Islam, also have divisions and sub-sets, but i am not sure that they are called "denominations". So let us for the sake of this discussion define a "denomination" as a separately identifiable group within the larger concept of Christianity, which can be identified to outsiders as well as insiders by means of some commonly held beliefs, practices or structures that differentiate them from other such groups

The Apostle Paul did tell Corinth that there must be divisions. But these divisions would manifest those approved and those disapproved by God. And he was speaking concerning the matter in which saints were coming to the Lord's table.

First Corinthians 11:19 - "For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you."

Because of the nature of voluntary cooperation with God's economy some sense of parties cannot be avoided. There will be unavoidable distinctions between those approved of God and those falling short for some reason or another.

Paul wrote this to the very same congregation that he exhorted that Christ is not divided (1:13). We may ask "Well Paul, is Christ divided or is Christ not divided? You just said that parties are unavoidable."

Though in the church Christ is not divided, it will often be the case those who rise up to the standard as those who overcome will seem to be a party or distinct from those defeated. See the seven exhortations to the seven local churches about "he who overcomes" OR "To him who overcomes" - (Rev. 2:7,11,17, 26; 3:5; 12, 21.)

This kind of division is not a self assuming "Better Than Thou" taken on in self pride. It is the division manifested unavoidably because as by God's mercy some maintain a standard expected of them while others are defeated in that regard.

"First of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and some part of it I believe. For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19)

We do not want to start a new division. But if in a city or in a church some seem to rise to the standard of normality whereas others remain in a defeated state, it is unavoidable that this will appear as parties. Those who are overcoming are manifest as distinct from those who are defeated.

Self pride has nothing whatsoever to do with this. And lack of Christian love also has nothing to do with this. We are to love one another and receive one another. But some are "inheriting the promises" as Hebrews says:

"That you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and long-suffering are inheriting the promises." (Hebrews 6:12)

We should not be surprised that in any given Christian age there ARE some who are inheriting the promises. We are exhorted to imitate their overcoming. So some "division" along this line cannot be avoided.

There however should not be formed any "Overcomer's church". And there should not be a dividing of the saints because of other reasons typical of denominational divisions.

Some saints in Corinth were arriving at the Lord's table with a proper attitude. And others were not. So a division was manifested. Those who were approved by God were seen as distinct from those defeated.

Now Paul would have forbidden that those approved start a new church in Corinth. IE. "The Good Lord's Table Church". No. They had to bear with those among them less up to the standard. They had to love them.

But concerning the city of Corinth, there was to be ONE church there - the church of God which is at Corinth. Christ, in Corinth, is not divided.

Typical examples of Denominations (not to labour a point, but for clarity)

Go ahead. I am verbose too.

are the Southern Baptist Convention in the US, the Methodists, the Presbyterians and a whole bagful of Pentecostals.

Okay. Stop. There may be nothing wrong with declaring a "Southern Convention" per se. There IS something wrong with declaring in a city a "Southern Convention Church" other than the local church.

There may be nothing wrong with having a Pentacostal or Method or Baptizing conference per se. There is something wrong with declaring a "Pentacostal Church" in a city other than the church in that city. There is something wrong with establishing a "Methodist Church" in a city besides the local church for that city.

Do you see? The publishing firm which publishes books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is dedicated to that project. In the US that firm is called LSM - Living Stream Ministry. What would be wrong would be to establish in Anehiem a "Living Stream Ministry Church" besides "the church in Anahiem."

A conference for some special interests may not be improper. But the establishment of a church with a ground either larger than or smaller than the locality is an error. In the case of a "Pentacostal Church" in Sidney you have a ground which is larger than the ground of Sidney. In the case of a "Southern Convention Church" in Pretoria you have a ground which is larger than the ground of the city of Pretoria.

God, not human beings, ordained that the scope of the practical church should be no smaller and no larger than the locality. Maybe for this reason a "home church" though seemingly closer to the utterance of the NT. After the saints were thrown out of the synagogs all the local churches probably started in the homes of the saints.

Many homes with meetings as the local church is biblical. See the church in Jerusalem of about 10,000 men meeting (not to mention women and children). They probably met in hundreds of homes. The Spirit of God always mentions the church in connection with city in the SINGULAR.

And to come BACK to this ground is not to start a new denomination, if the practice of receiving all whom the Lord receives in being adhered to.

So to come back to your quote above, I did NOT leave christianity, nor did we start another denomination.

Given my clarification, I have no problem with you saying you did not leave Christianity. But I bet you DID leave "denominational Christianity." I bet you notice that the NT spoke of the church in someones house and you decided that better than denominations was to church according to homes.

It was a step in a good direction. Rolf went further. He came full circle back to many homes or many meeting places yet one church for the locality.

Probably in his ecstatic state of discovery he offended some people. Or to be fair he made some people feel "un-churched" as if their church was not legitimate. And to be honest, if I had not seen something I probably would have been offended also.

I sympathize. But I also was offended when as an unbeliever a Christian told me that I was a "lost sheep." The NERVE !! "I am not lost sheep" I complained to myself.

Then one day I found out that I was indeed a lost sheep and I came to Jesus. So the feeling of being "un-churched" by the concept of the local church is a problem.

My opinion is that if I do not take the way of the local church I will be involved in MORE problems.

There is NO denomination called The Home Church Movement, (if there was, I would not join it!) but home churches exist as informal gatherings of people with common interests and objectives. There is no common denominator among such churches other than being loosely based on Christianity, and there are huge differences among them.

The Denomination that I left was the Baptist Church. Our home church consisted of Baptists, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, Catholic as well as unaffiliated.

I see. I understand you to mean that except for your perhaps weekly meeting, they all remained members of their denominations. They did not really leave denominational ground. But they were hungry for meetings in homes which met their spiritual need.

I think you had something good going. And I think God wanted to take you all further and Rolf was part of that.

It had no organisation other than a common agreement to meet!

This something like the Brethren Assemblies. The only difference is that these brothers decided to no longer support the denominations. They came OUT to simply meet as brethren in one another's homes.

Watchman Nee saw from God something further - the local church.

We did not claim to be the sole representatives of Christ (what arrogance!) nor did we claim to be better (even worse!) but merely different, and that we enjoyed worshiping together and in a certain way. We made NO doctrinal statement claims.

Let me respond to this in a new post. No need to inundate me. You ha....

The Denomination that I left was the Baptist Church.
Our home church consisted of Baptists, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, Catholic as well as unaffiliated. It had no organisation other than a common agreement to meet! We did not claim to be the sole representatives of Christ (what arrogance!) nor did we claim to be better (even worse!) but merely different, and that we enjoyed worshiping together and in a certain way. We made NO doctrinal statement claims.

When the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem they left Daniel there in Babylon. No one can dare say that Daniel was not spiritual. Perhaps he had no opportunity to go back with the remnant led by Haggai, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc.

Coming BACK to the Jerusalem to set up the altar, rebuild the house of God, and rebuild the wall may have seemed like arrogance to some who remained in captivity.

"How can YOU claim some sole representation of Israel? Aren't we representative of Israel too ? "

It was the ground that had the representation. It was the standing that that had the real representation. It was not because the Jews who returned to God's promise land and city were necessarily better Jews and more fit in themselves to be representatives of God's move.

It was the standing place - the ground that had the position of being what God desired.

You are confusing the condition of the church with the ground of the church. No, the saints meeting on the local ground may not love the Lord as much as several priests and nuns in the Roman Catholic Church who love the Lord more. But those priests and nuns who may be more spiritual are standing on the wrong ground that represents the church Christ said He would build.

The arrogance card doesn't go too far. Some say we Christians are sheerly arrogant to claim that WE are saved. But that fact that we are is because we stand not in ourselves but in Jesus Christ.

And those saints CAN claim to be the church in a city IF, they live as those receiving all believers.

If you boast that you received Baptists and Methodists and Dutch Reform in your home meetings then instead of remaining in a "halfway house" you should just have decided that you wanted to stand as the local church. The ground has the representation of what God wants.

Corinth had plenty of problems. You might say it was arrogance for some to say "We are the church in Corinth." How can those involved in such spiritual problems DARE to claim sole representation of being the church in Corinth.

Over here in the group that says "We are of Paul" and the group that says "We are of Apollos" they may have had better acting Christians, not involved in law suits and not involved in living with mother-in-laws in an improper way.

Did Paul encourage them to start a denomination to be representatives of the church there? The condition was not the governing factor of who represented the church in Corinth. It was the oneness in Corinth on the ground of Corinth.

This is similar to the hundreds of very wealthy Jews in New York City condeming the people in Israel for saying that they stand on the ground of Israel.

"Are we not also Jews? Are we not also of Israel? Do we not love Moses? How can you have the arrogance to say YOU represent Israel when there are plenty of better Jews here in Brooklyn New York?"

The ground of Israel is on that land there in the Middle East.
And the ground of the expression of the universal church is one church in a locality. Men do have both the privileged and corresponding responsibility to claim to be the church in a city receiving all whom the Lord has received.

What Rolf (and the LC) did and does, was fundamentally different. They now said THIS IS THE TRUTH AND THE ONLY TRUTH. When they separated from us it was to form a structure which had the following characteristics:
1. A formal doctrine, which was specified, exposited and clearly different in many aspects from other groups, hence separately identifiable.

No formal doctrine has to be adhered to. You have to believe that Jesus is Lord. Of course you must be a believer to be a constituent of the church.

The requirement to receive believers into the church is only to sense that Christ has already received them in salvation.

"Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received you to the glory of God." (Rom. 15:7)

When Jesus received me He did not examine what my belief was in anything except Himself as Lord and Savior. And we can see that Christ has received someone regardless of opinions on many doctrinal things.

The church in the locality will receive all whom the Lord has received. You only read books by RC Sproul and cannot stand Watchman Nee? You have been received by Jesus. The local church has to receive you.
You believe in immersion and not sprinkling? If the Lord has received you in that opinion the local church has to receive you.

You believe in sprinkling and not immersion? If you have been received by Christ for salvation the local church has to receive you.

You believe in speaking in tongues? If Jesus received you the local church has to receive you.

You believe that a Christian better NOT ever speak in tongues? If the Lord has received you with that opinion then the local church also has to receive you.

The only question that is asked is "Has Jesus received this person for salvation? If this person has been received then we Christians standing as the local church have no choice but to receive this person. To cut him off is to cut ourselves off. We are members one of another.

This does not mean that the local elders or responsible saints do not have views as to what to teach from the Bible. It does mean that doctrinal opinions should are below the "organic" realization of life, that as Christ has received a sinner so also the church must receive the member.

Actually no one "joins" the church. One is BORN again "organically" into her.

We are talking in circles and playing ping-pong. Both of us are merely repeating what we have already said, only in other words! This is the frustrating part.

Let me restate YOUR position in my own words, so that you can see that I understand it. Then you do not have to repeat it over and over again. Tell me where I am wrong:

1. In the NT the early church is shown as being formed IN ONE LOCALITY. There was the Church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, etc. There were NO divisions in the churches, and where such divisions appeared, they were strongly spoken against.

2. It is God's Grand Design that there should be only ONE Church in a specific locality. There is a blessing in the virtue of it being grounded in one place. It symbolizes the unity of all believers and the unity of the Body of Christ. Furthermore, this is the only true and acceptable way for Christians to worship, to gather together in a particular Locality on the grounds of LIVING IN THAT LOCALITY and not on the grounds of any doctrine. This is what pleases God and what He blesses. Every other kind of gathering is unacceptable to Him.

3. Over time, this TRUTH has been lost. Many different so-called "denominations" have sprung up, one on the basis of Baptism, another on Being Filled with the HS, and many many others, so that today we have tens or hundreds of groups in an area, all calling themselves christians, but NOT meeting together solely on the grounds of meeting IN THAT LOCALITY. This is in total contradiction with the pattern in the NT.

4. Brother Witness Lee noticed this and it grieved him in his spirit. He felt led by god to correct it. Some Brothers in the "denominational wilderness" had already seen the error of the system and started meeting informally. He encouraged this, and as more members joined they started meetings IN A LOCALITY and invited all who saw the vision of this restoration to join with them. Nothing else was important other than that they were born again and lived in a particular area. As the word spread, believers in other cities also caught the vision and started meeting in this way.

5. It was NEVER Witness Lee's (or anybody else's) intention to start another denomination. Far from it! They simply wanted to break down the artificial barriers of the "denominational system" and recognize ONLY the Locality as their grounds for meeting.

6. In this way, true NT churches were being re-established. The Kingdom of God was being extended and the local churches were receiving teaching and wholesome nourishment.

7 Anybody still caught in the "denominational system" but wishing themselves to be free from its curse, are welcome to join any of the Local Churches, where they will be received with open arms.

How am I doing? Have I captured your PoV correctly? Do you disagree with anything in this analysis?

In a nutshell, your key paragraph seems to have been this:

We do not want to start a new division. But if in a city or in a church some seem to rise to the standard of normality whereas others remain in a defeated state, it is unavoidable that this will appear as parties. Those who are overcoming are manifest as distinct from those who are defeated.

My position is as follows:

Up to Item 5 above I have no problem whatsoever. It is only THE LOGIC (or rather the lack of it) of jumping from the de factosituation of Item 5 to the presumptuous situation of Item 6, that I have a problem with.

Your arrogance shows itself in your choice of words overcomersand defeated. THIS is the error of all Reformers - WE ARE THE ONLY TRUE FAITH!!

Somebody once said that the ignominy of Christ and the affront to our sensibilities of the Incarnation (as expressed in Isa. 53 as well as Paul's writings) are shown in these three aspects of the gospel:

1. His birth as an illegitimate child born in a barn to poor people
2. His execution as a common criminal
3. His representative Body on earth today

All three of these were an affront to society. A major embarrassment.

You may agree with the first two - but it is the third that we are speaking of in this thread. There is no question that the church, which claims to be His body on earth, is a laughing stock, hugely divided and ineffectual. An embarrassment. It is NOT YET visible as the "bride without spot or wrinkle". It is the wheat among the tares. It is doctrinally impure, and one of these doctrines is the one about the LC.

So, again, feel free to start your own movement. But to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best.

Personally, I think we have exhausted this subject. No amount of scripture quoting will change the fact that there is now a new kid on the block even if you yourselves deny that you are one!

Finally, I am not sure HOW the final embarrassment of the Church will be removed. Just like the shame of the birth and death of Jesus, it will continue to look shameful until the Final Intervention at the close of the age. But how and when this will be is not the subject of this discussion.

So, again, feel free to start your own movement. But to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best.

Sorry, did not want to sound so harsh.

Bottom line - do what you believe is God's way for you right now, and go in peace. I have no quarrel with you.

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust

So, again, feel free to start your own movement. But to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best.

Sorry, did not want to sound so harsh.

Bottom line - do what you believe is God's way for you right now, and go in peace. I have no quarrel with you.

CJ

I haven't finished reading your other rebukes and comments yet.
You do not have to quarrel. But I may finish my responses.

I am intrigued by the accusation of "arrogance". You see Paul said -

"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:13)

Sure, I confess that I can commit the sin of arrogance. Praise the Lord for His precious cleansing blood.

But how FAR now should I take an accusation of arrogance in this matter of Ephesians 4:13) .

1.) Paul said "until WE all arrive" - including himself. So we know that God will cause us all to arrive at this glorious oneness.

Did he say we will all arrive at the same time ?
I cannot detect that he said we will all arrive at the same time but that we will all arrive.

2.) Though it is foolish to announce "We here have arrived" why should some of us not want to seek the Lord to be in the process of "arriving"?

Why should be be condemned for desiring in a practical locality, TO arrive? Why must we be condemned for wanting to cooperate with the Lord for the process of furthering our arrival ?

3.) While it would be presumptous to proudly boast that "WE have arrived at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full grown man" on the other hand why should we accept accusations when the process of arriving is being carried out by God?

The book of Hebrews said " ... be imitators of those who are inheriting the promises" . It did not say condemn them as arrogant, claiming to be the sole representatives of God.

Sure, saying "Us four and no more" is exclusive and turns people off. On the other hand, a pure heart is never turned off to see rejoicing that God is causing some to inherit the promises. The exhortation was to be imitators not be accusers.

4.) If we do not believe that on this earth there will be any arriving at the full frown man of at least some who overcome, then Paul's prophecy is either wrong or relegated to something only in heaven.

"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith ..." But not here in he church age on earth. Here we HAVE to perpetually be divided.

"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith ..." But not on earth, only in heaven. Here on earth in this age we MUST be always children tossed about, carried away, divided. This arriving is not on earth but only in heaven.

These are murmurs of unbelief. How about a there be those who overcome in the church age, on the earth, before the second coming of Christ, who are in the process of "arriving" at "the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a fullgrown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

You can believe what you want. I think that God has to point to a remnant of believers in so many cities on this earth and say to Satan - "You see? In this and that locality, I have some who are in the process of arriving at the oneness of the faith. I said I would build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. You said 'Oh YES WE WILL!' But I have golden lampstands standing as testimonies of the genuine oneness."

If this arriving is not the experience of at least some overcoming saints on this earth in this church age, then the Lord's prophesy must be wrong. In that case the gates of Hades HAVE prevailed.

If this arriving is ONLY after the church age or perhaps in heaven, then that is a defeat to God and a victory to his enemy.

So Paul said that we all will arrive. Before the kingdom age of the millennium I firmly believe that a remnant will be brought into this oneness. Returning to the local ground, I think, is one door opened by God, for us to cooperate with His will.

Originally posted by CalJust

So, again, feel free to start your own movement. But to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best.

Sorry, did not want to sound so harsh.

Bottom line - do what you believe is God's way for you right now, and go in peace. I have no quarrel with you.

CJ

Thank you for considering the tone.

But you do have some good point which I think SHOULD be raised and spoken to.

I was very impressed when it says that the apostles ministered to the Lord in the beginning of His move from Antioch.

"Now there were in Antioch, in the local church [or the church there], prophets and teachers: Barnabas and Simeon, who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Set apart for Me now Barnabus and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:1,2 RcV )

They were ministering to the Lord. They were asking the Lord "Lord WHAT is YOUR need?"

We on earth have plenty of needs. All the churches are filled with needy people. All the Christian groups are scrambling around trying to meet people's many needs. And those are real needs, no doubt.

Isn't it good that God could have a few people praying to minister to the need of the Lord Jesus? God has a need. Jesus Christ has a need. The Holy Spirit has a need for the purpose of God.

The wonderful things that came out of Barnabus and Paul started with a group of men ministering to the need of God, seeking what was His need.

"And as they were MINISTERING TO THE LORD ..."

While we all have many legitimate needs, I believe that one church for one city is something that meets a NEED of God. God needs a testimony like this, like the churches as the apostles originally established them.

Originally posted by sonship
Thank you for considering the tone.

But you do have some good point which I think SHOULD be raised and spoken to.

I was very impressed when it says that the apostles ministered to the Lord in the beginning of His move from Antioch.

[b]"Now there were in Antioch, in the local church [or the church there], prophets and teachers: Barnabas ...[text shortened]... God needs a testimony like this, like the churches as the apostles originally established them.

Check the meaning of the word 'arrogant'.

Thanks for the ride, sonship, but CJ checking out of this conversation now.

Originally posted by sonship

Welcome back to this thread. There is some unfinished business...

This is what I wrote on 12 July, which you did not reply to, but opened up a whole new subject instead.

This is actually plain common sense. Could I have your simple response to this please, rather than going all doctrinal and scriptural to me again? Why are you not prepared to admit that a new movement is, well, a new movement?

So, again, feel free to start your own movement. But to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best.

Originally posted by CalJust
Welcome back to this thread. There is some unfinished business...

This is what I wrote on 12 July, which you did not reply to, but opened up a whole new subject instead.

This is actually plain common sense. Could I have your simple response to this please, rather than going all doctrinal and scriptural to me again? Why are you not prepared to admit tha ...[text shortened]... ut to claim that you are NOT doing so, is patently absurd and wishful thinking at best. [/quote]

Good luck with that one.

Originally posted by CalJust
Thanks for the ride, sonship, but CJ checking out of this conversation now.

Could you explain what this post means ?

Originally posted by sonship
Could you explain what this post means ?

He means that he does not wish to have a converstaion on this new subject you started. See his next post.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He means that he does not wish to have a converstaion on this new subject you started. See his next post.

I asked Caljust, not you. How do you know what his next post would be anyway? Is he running them by you first ?

Originally posted by sonship
I asked Caljust, not you. How do you know what his next post would be anyway? Is he running them by you first ?

I actually read his post in an attempt to understand it. How about just answering his questions.