Biblical locality
The folks in this message board discussion that do not accept Biblical locality are confused souls. We should not divide the body of Christ according to the eternal contradictory belief systems of denominationalism, congregationalism, independents and their various boundaries that either exceed or are too small to constitute locality. There is only one way God divides the body of Christ and it was shown in the Bible. Those confused souls should pull out their dusty Bibles, stop yapping so much on the internet, self-flagellating, gang banging themselves in a self-indulgent calvinist forum, and see that it is so. They are swelling up! Apostles will need to be right first before this first love is reclaimed of church locality. That Revival of Work is being done, even now, from humble beginnings. In the kingdom of heaven, there is nothing the unsaved tares, who try to look like saved wheat, can do to stop what has already begun.
Commitotruth Re: Discuss: The "Ground of
Locality"
« Reply #401 on: April 09, 2006, 03:45:53 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The teaching of the ground of locality is true, for there was ground of the
Thessolinian church in the churches of Macedonia. There was the church of
Philippi, and the church of Corinth in the churches of Achaia.
There was the church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia, and the church of
Smyrna in the churches of Asia.
There was the church of Jerusalem in the churches of Judea and the church of
Antioch in the churches of Syria.
So you see, the question is not whether the ground of locality is true, but
whether it is being applied properly. It is not applied properly in
denominations for their apostles are not right before, or they may not even
believe in apostles to appoint elders of these localities I have just mentioned.
There is just these three major levels in the church structure.
There is the apostles who work regionally, who have a strong foundation of truth
in agreement. This is what is lack everywhere. But in the Revival of the Church
before the return of Christ, all this will be returned to Christ.
The next level is the elders of those localities, and under them elders of the
many meeting places, like Rome which had a million people and many meeting
places within.
Is the truth so unreasonable?
Mike K. Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #402 on: April 09, 2006, 03:51:55 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way this truth would not be applied properly is when though they may be
applying this structure, the apostles are not right before God, because their
teaching is wrong. I said that already, but what I did not say is that with this
structure to the Church, you can not exceed the boundary of the regional work
and the elders of these localities can not exceed their responsibility.
God does not allow for a central committee like they have at Living Stream
Ministry whom distribute all the various products to their churches with generic
websites from the same webhosting services. That is a dead giveaway.
The interenet is still valuable in that we can use it as a meeting place to find
where to fellowship in meeting places that are under proper authority of the
churches founded on the apostles as the Bible says.
Surely none will deny the churches are founded on the apostles and the work of
the apostles should not cease.
Mike K. Message (Offline)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #403 on: April 09, 2006, 05:44:55 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on April 09, 2006, 03:51:55 PM
Surely none will deny the churches are founded on the apostles and the work of
the apostles should not cease.
I would say that the churches are founded upon Christ and the work of Christ,
and the Lord Himself said on the Cross "It is finished". But regardless, the
work of Christ, though complete, never ceases since it's once-for-all until
eternity. He accomplishes in us the willing and the working up to this very day,
no need for some "apostles" to do what they believe Christ has failed to do.
Mike K Message (Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #404 on: April 09, 2006, 05:50:47 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on April 09, 2006, 03:45:53 PM
Is the truth so unreasonable?
In the light of truth, this so-called "truth" is unreasonable, sorry to say.
Ever since the 15th century, God has used a decentralized network, and we have
seen Christians from various backgrounds meeting in various denominations, and
it most definitely wasn't the devil's work to cause people to no longer meet in
the one "church" that was ordained from Rome as the Holy Mother Church. It chose
the Lord to set up an innumerable amount of "rebels" who went out nearly
simultaneously without any form of contact, to break the "One City One Church"
thing ordained by Rome in order to put His flock to meet in truth and spirit
instead of one place called Cathedral.
Now, were they wrong? Was it really not God's work to set up fellowships outside
"THE Church"?
Which group has the right to claim "We're right, you are wrong"? None - the Lord
is right, everything else is wrong. Is it so unreasonable to comprehend that the
Lord didn't set up a law of "One City, One Church"?
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #405 on: April 09, 2006, 07:29:44 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself
being the cornerstone" (Eph. 2.20). The apostles travelled and appointed elders
of localities, that is cities or towns. Do you see how you stop short at Christ,
and do not continue on with the Apostles doing the work?
Did Christ fail to do something causing Paul to travel to Macedonia and beyond?
No. He was doing the work of Christ as did the other apostles for they are in
the Ministry (Eph. 4.11) of the Work for the Church. Your issue is not with me
but with Christ, the Apostles and the Work for the Church.
It has always been wrong for the Church to divide in centralized organizations,
going beyond the boundary of a locality and region of churches like a
corporation. The rebels you speak of are considered the Sardis church period,
but unfortunately this revival was like after emptying a glass of water, filling
it up again with less water. We can detail the various false teachings that
spread as a consequence in watered down revivals.
The one city one church is proper as it was in the first century, but not if
above it is an organization that has false teaching and exceeds the regional
apostle work. There ought not to be 5 different major levels in Eastern Orthodox
and twelve major levels of beauracracy in the RCC. Forvige me if I am off a
level or two in the RCC. There should not even be a central command office for
any denomination. Heck, there should not even be denominations: the Bible is
clear about this, "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of
Apollos; are ye not carnal?" (1 Cor. 3:4). This is like saying I am of this or
that denomination, started up by this or that man.
The whole locality is the local church, whether there is agreement or not in it.
Even today, every city is one church locale, one miniature of the new city in
the new earth. However, these localities don't have Elders because the Apostles
have not come together in agreement yet after forsaking the first love that was
lost for over 1900 years. But it will happen again, which is needed before the
return of Christ because His overcomers will return (Jude 14,15) to reign with
Him over these localities. None can stop the rewards of the millennial Kingdom
(Rev. 20.4).
In the Bible there is no one Cathedral, so as soon as those who do this, like
all denominations do with a central command structure, then you know something
is wrong. God does not want either the many denominations, nor the central
cathedral. God wants Apostles first in agreement to appoint Elders of a
locality.
Now that we have come through 7 church periods that describe all the problems
the church would go through, we will then return to the first love of the first
century where the apostles appoint elders of a locality. This is beginning in
various places. Elijah was told there were 7000 others.
The Lord is right, the work of the Apostles was true, and so it remains until
His return. He needs us to reclaim this first love. Who is right? The true
Apostles are those in agreement with the Word. The Bible says for the first
church period Ephesus, "hast tried them which say they are apostles" (Rev. 2:2).
I know where this is being done today and it is not the central office of Living
Stream Ministry.
KSA View Profile Email Personal Message
(Offline)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #406 on: April 09, 2006, 07:39:18 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of our discussion of the matters of the oneness and locality, I
would like to draw your attention to 1 Kings, chapter 12. I offering you my
fellowship without any insistence, and I am open to any adjustment that you may
provide.
In 1 Kings 12 we see the account of the division between Israel and Judah. The
reason of division was the overuse of authority by Rehoboam, son of Solomon. He
listened to the advice of young men (who were not mature), and rejected the
advice of the elders. But the real cause of this division was the sin of Solomon
(idolatry). See 1 Kings 11:11.
It is interesting that Rehoboam tried to restore the oneness of the tribes, but
the Lord did not allow him. “You shall not go up and wage war with your brothers
the children of Israel. Every men return to his house; for this matter is of Me
(1 Kings 12:24). The division among God’s people was from the Lord and He
forbade to do anything about this. Why? I believe because the root of division
was not dealt with. Later we see that both Israel and Judah were guilty of
idolatry that originated from Solomon. So the Lord basically wanted them not to
restore outward oneness, but to deal with the inward sin of idolatry. That is
strange, but the Lord might allow divisions. I do not justify divisions (they
are surely the works of the flesh), but “there must even be paries among you,
that those who are approved may become manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). We do
not deal with divisions by waging war with our brothers, but we deal with sins
and take the cross. This is the only way the oneness can be kept. We cannot
restore it outwardly by issuing some regulations, like “locality”, “being one
with the ministry”, “carrying out the God-ordained way”, “having one
publication”. All these things are outward and only lead to waging war with our
brothers. I think that is enough for now.
BrentB Message (Online) Re:
Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #407 on: April 09, 2006, 09:29:40 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committed : the doctrine of locality is a false teaching, as is the dogma of
"one city one church." Neither are biblical. Inductive reasoning is not bible
study. These false teachings are the extrapolation of historical detail into a
legalistic construct. Locality and one city/one church were not taught by the
apostles or discussed anywhere in the new testament.
In the epistle to the Romans, Paul told one assembly to greet another assembly
in a house. There were 2 churches in Rome even at that time. In Colossians 4:15
Paul said to "salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the
church that is in their house." Even though Nymphas lived in Laodiciea, he had a
church in his house. It could not have been the church in Laodicea, since that
had a seperate salute. There were 2 churches in Laodicea. These 2 examples
destroy the alleged principle.
There is only one foundation of the church and that is Jesus Christ. Paul said
he laid a foundation, but then qualified himself :
1 Corinthians 3
10 According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise
masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each
man take heed how he buildeth thereon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ.
The church is built upon the rock of the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.
This rock is laid upon the founation of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 16 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Luke 6:48
48 he is like a man building a house, who digged and went deep, and laid a
foundation upon the rock: and when a flood arose, the stream brake against that
house, and could not shake it: because it had been well builded.
Eph 2 would seem to contradict 1 Cor 3. However, Paul made clear that the
foundation he was laying was Jesus Christ and that none other could be laid.
In any event, these are spiritual realities which lay beneath the church. The
doctrine of locality seeks to fuse the secular and municipal with spiritual
truth. You cannot split the spiritual rock and foundation of the church upon a
physical geographical "location." That only results in division and exclusivity.
When men make laws gleaned from historical data in the bible, it becomes a yoke
of slavery to them who are deceived into it's bondage. Localism delegitimizes
all *other* denominations as harlots of Babylon. It is therefore simply a word
game of self validation and a particularly hate-filled invalidation of all other
churches.
Churches are not defined by a secular municipality. Nor is the generic name of a
city church any indication of what is believed and practiced within it's walls.
That is only the outside of the cup. It is what is on the inside that matters.
We know that the sect which practices this false teaching is the church of Lee,
dedicated to the exaltation and worship of the person and work of Lee. That is
the actual nature of the church content. The name and label they give themselves
is totally irrelevant.
Despite the imperative to shun labels, Lee used the semantic argument of
localism to label, in a sweeping broad brush, all of christianity as monstrous,
fallen, christless, lifeless and a whoredom. He would have done well to regard
the warning in Revelation about those who declare themselves rich, but are
blind, naked and poor.
Commitotruth Message (Online)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #408 on: April 10, 2006, 06:12:34 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,
These are just man's flesh and excuses for rejecting the local expression of the
Church. Men want to accept the universal Church while rejecting the local
expression of the church unit. This is being doubletongued.
To reject the local expression and unit for the Church that God is after, is to
reject the love of Christ. Reject not the church of Philippi, the church of
Ephesus, the church of Corinth, the church of Thessalonica, the church of Berea.
The reason there is dissension is because the Church is unwilling to consider
the Biblical account of the local expression always given, so it divides by
corporations of denominations that exceed the boundary of a locality.
Col. 4:15 speaks of the church of Laodicea, and not the church of Nymphas, for
Nymphas is but one member of the body of Christ, not a whole church unit of
locality. The church is in her house, because her house is a meeting place of
the local expression of the church. There may be many meeting place in her
locality as there was in Rome.
This does not justify Witness Lee's organization going beyond the boundary of
the region of churches with his central office of Living Stream Ministry.
Remember, there is no Cathedral. Men justify their divisions of denominations,
but this is not God's will. These divisions are undealt with roots of problems.
There must not be one publication from one distributor of products such as
Living Stream Ministry. Just like there is an Open Bible, there is no one
publishing house, because as you can see Living Stream Ministry has many false
teachings.
Never divide the Church on person, place, doctrine or time. Never be a lazy man
and reject the unit of locality either.
Commitotruth Message (Online)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #409 on: April 10, 2006, 07:59:50 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us not be pretentious and only claim inward while rejecting the outward.
True inward manifests outwardly as was the case in the first century in
locality: church of Ephesus, church of Philippi, church of Corinth. Many do not
love this truth, for this first love has been lost, but will be a Revival when
restored for Christ for rewards. Let us have not such a harsh tone as Bent. The
Cornerstone is Christ, not Bent. The Cornerstone had Paul, Silas, Peter, Luke,
Timothy, Barnabas, Mark, go out and set up these churches rejected by Bent.
Bilbodog Message (Online)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #410 on: April 10, 2006, 08:30:33 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churches are defined by secular cities, not municipalities. Churches are
according to already defined governmental boundaries of a locality. You are so
confused Bent. Church of Corinth and the church of Antioch are not municipalties,
but localities.
Come on Bent, wake up! Wake up now! Is anybody in there, mcfly? God asks that
you stop exceeding this boundary, stop forsaking it, stop morphing into
divisions of men and doctrine and areas away from the local unit of the Church.
Pray this prayer with me: Lord show those who are not saved that they may by
faith receive life by believing on the true Son of God, and salvation does not
mean antinomianism, denying those truths in His Word by the false teaching
unrepentantly such as calvinism or killing the image of God saying man does not
have a distinct spirit and soul needing to be divided: "piercing even to the
dividing of soul and spirit" (Heb. 4.12).
Bilbodog Message (Offline) Re:
Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #411 on: April 10, 2006, 08:14:19 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Come on Bent, wake up! "
Committotruth,
There is nothing wrong with a passionate plea, charge, or challenge, however,
you're modification of Brent's name (to Bent) is not only uncalled for but also
is against forum rules as it is merely another form of name calling.
Please refrain from such practice in the future and just explain your
differences or views.
Commitotruth Message (Online)
Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #412 on: Today at 12:51:58 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was alright to call him Bent, which seemed an accurate
representation, since I was called commited [seep post #407], which I am, to the
truth.
Matt Message (Offline) Re:
Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #413 on: Today at 01:50:45 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on Today at 12:51:58 AM
I thought it was alright to call him Bent, which seemed an accurate
representation, since I was called commited, which I am, to the truth.
No, it's not alright... Please refrain.
irwtss Message (Offline) Re:
Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #414 on: Today at 04:58:51 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Austin Sparks mentioned Act 9:31 in one of his messages when he spoke of Nee’s
teaching of the Ground of Locality. This verse depicts many localities, one
church, which directly negates the assertion of one city one church. (BTW, WL
tried to explain it away in his footnote without any support of the Word). If
one city one church is the only “way”, how come this verse said otherwise? The
only plausible application to me is “one city one church” is one of the many
ways. It may even be one of the “few better ways” if applied correctly, i.e.
receiving each other in love.
howie Message (Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #415 on: Today at 06:07:57 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right irwts, he T. Austin-Sparks also offers more valuable insights
Consider this one which can be found at:
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/000718.html
"Have we in the New Testament a clearly defined and completely set-out plan of
the Church, its order, constitution, methods and work? Is there a concise and
worked-out system in the nature of a 'blue-print', which is ready for copying
and reproducing everywhere, and can be recognised as true to type in every
place? The answer is decidedly No! But if we mean: Is there in the New Testament
a revelation of God's mind as to the Church, in its nature, constitution, and
vocation? it is no contradiction of the above when we say: Yes, decidedly Yes!
It is possible to take parts of the New Testament, as to doctrines, practices,
work, methods, and order, to piece them together, and to frame them into a
system to be adopted and applied. This is the mechanical or 'ecclesiastical'
method, and it is capable of an almost endless variety of presentations,
resulting in a very large variety of organized bodies, every one of which claims
the New Testament for its authority. This in turn issues in rivalries,
competitiveness, controversy, and, eventually, in the presenting to the world of
a Christianity divided into a vast number of independent and unrelated parts,
far removed from 'all speaking the same thing'. The external and objective
approach to the New Testament, with a view to studying it as a manual or
text-book of Christian life, teaching and work, is a false one, a dangerous one,
and - so far as any real spiritual outcome is concerned - a dead one. If God had
meant successive generations of Christians to IMITATE the first and proceed on
the mass-production principle, surely He would have seen to it that in some way
a precise and unmistakable prototype existed, with adequate safeguards against
all the confusion and misapprehension which has actually eventuated.
When men, Christian men, contemplate a project which is intended to last for a
considerable tenure, they set down precisely their 'Principles and Practice',
consisting of their doctrines, their purpose, their practices, their methods,
and so on. God did not commission or allow His first Apostles to act in this
way, so that we might have a Jerusalem or Antioch Blue Book or Manual for
Christian churches. In the Divine mind it is all definite, fixed, precise, and
permanent, but when we come to the New Testament, and especially the formative
period as covered by the Book of the Acts, everything seems so fluid, so open,
and so subject to proving. There is the most wonderful and sublime reason for
this; but, before we come to that, let us point out that the approach to which
we have referred above is the cause of more limitation, stagnation, deadly
legality, than can be measured. In doctrine, it means that the doctrinal compass
is boxed and no new light is allowed as to God's Word. Of course, this is the
peril of orthodoxy. The intense desire to safeguard the Scriptures can lead to a
sealing off against any new light from them as to meaning and interpretation,
and this makes for a static spiritual position. Spiritual pride, bigotry,
exclusiveness, suspicion, are some of the unholy brood of this legalism. If
Satan cannot force to the one extreme of superiority to the written Word, he
will try the opposite of bondage to the letter without the spirit.
The merely objective approach of which we have written may or may not be
characterized by all of the above-mentioned features, but it will most certainly
be limited in its spiritual power and results. It may very well result in the
responsibility being made to rest upon men, so that all kinds of devices and
expedients have to be resorted to in order that the work and institution can be
maintained and furthered. Christianity has almost entirely come to be such a
thing now, and it is practically impossible for the vast majority of Christians
- their leaders especially - to understand or even believe that God can do His
work without committees, boards, machinery, advertisement, organizations,
appeals, reports, names, deputations, patronage, propaganda, publicity, the
press, etc. Unless these things are present with a 'recognised' backing, the
thing is not trusted, even if it is believed to exist."
I just want to highlight what I feel are points he makes worth some
consideration for those of us who currently adopt the "one city, one church"
model:
1) He states "It is possible to take parts of the New Testament, as to
doctrines, practices, work, methods, and order, to piece them together, and to
frame them into a system to be adopted and applied. This is the mechanical or
'ecclesiastical' method, and it is capable of an almost endless variety of
presentations, resulting in a very large variety of organized bodies, every one
of which claims the New Testament for its authority."
Can anyone deny that in Christian history this has happened? It is not just we
local churchers who claim that we have the blueprint, many different groups of
believers throughout history and still today claim that they are practicing the
church as prescribed in the New Testament. But think about that for a minute in
light of what he is saying. His point is that if God wanted a blueprint, he
would not have made it so confusing to arrive at what the blueprint is. Many who
use this blueprint method come up with very different final models all with
verses to support. If God had intended this, he is indeed a very cruel God
because he asks us to keep the oneness and then makes the blueprint for oneness
so difficult to ascertain. But I am much more convinced by the fact that God is
not cruel and does desire us to be one, and therefore he did not leave that
oneness to all Christians agreeing on one blueprint in order for oneness to be
properly kept and displayed. To actually try to do this is an act of
frustrustration and ultimate futility. Of course, it is easy for us local
churchers to sidestep this issue by simply saying that God is just interested in
the "remnant" to come back to his ordained way of oneness. I think that is
bologne.
2) He states: "God did not commission or allow His first Apostles to act in this
way, so that we might have a Jerusalem or Antioch Blue Book or Manual for
Christian churches. In the Divine mind it is all definite, fixed, precise, and
permanent, but when we come to the New Testament, and especially the formative
period as covered by the Book of the Acts, everything seems so fluid, so open,
and so subject to proving."
A very good point that he brings up here is that the Apostles never once tried
to codify a certain church as a pattern for other churches to follow. Things
were fluid and subject to proving. It was the Holy Spirit who organized the
churches of the New Testament times, and it is the Holy Spirit who will organize
the churches of our time not by outward controls but by accomplishing inward
onenes first. If you just look at what the Holy Spirit has done in the last 30
years it doesn't take a rocket scientiest to see that the HOLY SPIRIT IS
bringing a certain kind of harmony among believers today. 30 years ago, walls
between believers were sky high. Today, that is not the case at all. Christian
want to work together and the lines in the sand are disappearing. This is work
and organization of the Holy Spirit and not man. After all, no one man can be
traced to what is happening today among believers, it's incredible.
3) Another good point: "The intense desire to safeguard the Scriptures can lead
to a sealing off against any new light from them as to meaning and
interpretation, and this makes for a static spiritual position. Spiritual pride,
bigotry, exclusiveness, suspicion, are some of the unholy brood of this
legalism. If Satan cannot force to the one extreme of superiority to the written
Word, he will try the opposite of bondage to the letter without the spirit."
It is very difficult to find other local churchers who are willing to actually
even objectively study the ground of locality. There definately is a feeling
that we need to safeguard the Scriptures which means no new light as to meaning
and interpretation. And can we deny the "Spiritual pride, bigotry,
exclusiveness, suspicion....that has been produced among us and the growing
legalism surrounding us. May the Lord protect us from the enemy!
4) And finally: "It may very well result in the responsibility being made to
rest upon men, so that all kinds of devices and expedients have to be resorted
to in order that the work and institution can be maintained and furthered."
When you look at how the "Ground of Locality" is implemented in reality, it
becomes apparent all kinds of devices and expedients have to be resorted to. In
cases where the Spirit may lead one way, the "ground" causes men to use devices.
Howie
Message (Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #416 on: Today at 06:34:04 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of T. Austin-Sparks to chew on:
The Positive Ground of the Church -
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/001371.html
The Mission, the Meaning, and the Message of Jesus Christ -
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/000953.html
(look under the heading "Heaven's Focus Through the Ages")
I will try to add some personal commentary in the next few days.
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #417 on: Today at 08:41:19 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Matt Anderson on Today at 01:50:45 AM
No, it's not alright... Please refrain.
Matt
It would seem to be alright since you still have a doublestandard. It is
important that we treat others as we would like to be treated.
Commitotruth: I received a warning in a PM from Matt. I said to him, why the double standard? He said belligerent, what double standard? I told him that I already said what the double standard was and asked him, why does he not treat others as he would like to be treated?
Commitotruth
Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of
Locality"
« Reply #418 on: Today at 09:02:14 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: irwtss on Today at 04:58:51 AM
T Austin Sparks mentioned Act 9:31 in one of his messages when he spoke of Nee’s
teaching of the Ground of Locality. This verse depicts many localities, one
church, which directly negates the assertion of one city one church. (BTW, WL
tried to explain it away in his footnote without any support of the Word). If
one city one church is the only “way”, how come this verse said otherwise? The
only plausible application to me is “one city one church” is one of the many
ways. It may even be one of the “few better ways” if applied correctly, i.e.
receiving each other in love.
If this is what Sparks taught, then you know he is wrong, because his reasoning
is flawed and couth because this verses does not depict many localities, but
rather, many regions of localities. Witness Lee seems to leave out the issue of
his organization having a central operation, which is going beyond the boundary
of a region of churches and church localities. There is only one way in the
Bible, not many ways. Your confusion, and Sparks', comes from not understand the
difference between the whole Church universal and the local expressions of the
church. Watchman Nee proved the case in his writings easily, always one step
ahead it would seem. This verse depicts many regions of localities (churches),
one Church, which directly confirms the fact that each locality - one city, one
church - is a unit of expression with elders that manage them. Watchman Nee
wrote in Church and the Work - Rethinking the Work (CFP white covers),
We have just seen that the boundary of a church cannot be narrower than the
locality to which it belongs. On the other hand, its boundary cannot be wider
than the locality. In the Word of God we never read of “the church in
Macedonia,” or “the church in Galatia,” or “the church in Judea,” or “the church
in Galilee.” Why? Because Macedonia and Galilee are provinces, and Judea and
Galatia are districts. A province is not a scriptural unit of locality, neither
is a district; both include a number of units, therefore they include a number
of separate churches and do not constitute one church. A provincial church or a
district church is not according to Scripture, since it does not divide on the
ground of locality, but combines a number of localities. It is because all
scriptural churches are local churches that there is no mention of state
churches, provincial churches, or district churches in the Word of God.
“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts
9.31, A.V.). The Holy Spirit did not speak here of “the church,” but of “the
churches.” Because there were a number of localities there were also a number of
churches. It was not God’s plan to unite the churches of different places into
one church, but to have a separate church in each place. There were as many
churches as there were places.
“He went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Acts 15.41). Again
the reference is not to one single church, because Syria and Cilicia were vast
districts, each comprising a number of different places. It is permissible in
political circles to unite many different places into a district and call it
Syria or Cilicia, but God does not unite the believers in a number of different
places and call them “the church in Syria,” or “the church in Cilicia.” There
may be unions or combines in the commercial or political world, but God
sanctions no combine amongst the churches. Each separate place must have a
separate church..
Why do you allow your flesh to seek a combine as in the commercial and political
world?
Commitotruth
Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of
Locality"
« Reply #419 on: Today at 09:23:45 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have seen T. Austin Sparks was wrong when he said, “The answer is
decidedly No!” since the answer is decidedly Yes given the proof. Therefore,
when Sparks said, “Is there in the New Testament a revelation of God's mind as
to the Church, in its nature, constitution, and vocation? it is no contradiction
of the above when we say: Yes, decidedly Yes!,” he was being pretentious,
because he rejected the revelation, nature, constitution, and vocation of the
Church by not accepting God’s Word about church locales.
This is an incorrect claim by T. Austin Sparks: “He would have seen to it that
in some way a precise and unmistakable prototype existed, with adequate
safeguards against all the confusion and misapprehension which has actually
eventuated.” The reason this is wrong is because in Revelation 2 & 3 we see all
the problems the Church would experience, becoming a shadow of itself. In the
first century Ephesus period, for example, there is the first love that was
lost. Yes, it was lost that quickly. Then, in the last Church period (today), we
see the Church is neither hot nor cold, but luke warm and confused in “differing
opinions,” the meaning of Laodicean.
We must accept the fact that there is the inward as well as the outward. To deny
the outward while claiming the inward is a dead works. Even sparks admits,
“variety of presentations, resulting in a very large variety of organized
bodies, every one of which claims the New Testament for its authority. This in
turn issues in rivalries, competitiveness, controversy, and, eventually, in the
presenting to the world of a Christianity divided into a vast number of
independent and unrelated parts, far removed from 'all speaking the same
thing'.”
The teaching in the Word is a spiritual truth about the local expression of the
Church. The reason it is spiritual is because it prevents the ability of the
Church to be like the world with combines as Watchman Nee well points out. Do
not reject this truth because T. Austin Sparks, confused himself with these
words, “The external and objective approach to the New Testament, with a view to
studying it as a manual or text-book of Christian life, teaching and work, is a
false one, a dangerous one, and - so far as any real spiritual outcome is
concerned - a dead one.” Remember, T. Austin Sparks is Laodicean.
simeond Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #420 on: Today at 09:48:12 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a question for some time and it seems your post, Commitotruth, is a
good a reason as any to ask it. At the time Paul was writing the church was very
young - and had not developed through myriad stages and tumults etc... as they
have as of today. Paul did not need to address a myriad of believers who had
been meeting separately in different places and different demoninations who had
never crossed paths in their lives, but rather a much smaller discrete number of
believers (to the point where, if he referenced a small household, it was
recognizable to the whole church). Yes, he did write to dissuade against
potential divisions, but he was still writing to the whole of the Christian
community within a given geographical location - and yes, they all knew
eachother. There were, quite simply, just not that many believers - numerically
- at that time. He addressed these saints according to the life-situation in
which they found themselves. The saints he wrote to were in cities and there
we're "rival" groups that he could have also written to (not to my knowledge).
It becomes difficult, then, to abstract away his writings to making a more
universal point about the nature of the church and christian life. Several
things Paul talks about are like this. Slaves being subject to masters... etc...
Paul wrote to the "Church in X" because there was no other name by which to call
it. There were no competitors. What if there were? How then would Paul have
written? Which group would he admonish? What would he say to "free group X" that
he would not say to "free group Y"? What would he stress? Would he stress the
local arrangement? Or would he stress the truth on which the groups may or may
not be misguided?
In short, there are soooooo many more variables today then there were in Paul's
day. That he addressed the "church in X" would be instructive if there were
several different groups of different names and denominations but he still chose
to refer to them as "church in X". But there weren't, and so we don't know -
just by his address to the churches - how he would have approached this
situation, do we?
irwtss Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #421 on: Today at 10:06:30 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This verse depicts many regions of localities (churches), one Church, which
directly confirms the fact that each locality - one city, one church - is a unit
of expression with elders that manage them. Watchman Nee wrote in Church and the
Work - Rethinking the Work (CFP white covers)
This is exactly the same reasoning WL used to try to explain away the singular
“church” in this verse. Such explanation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the
“one locality one church” teaching IS CORRECT. However, the logic is incorrect
or reversed because one cannot explain away the facts depicted in the bible text
that does not fit an explanation put forward by a man. I respect brother Nee
tremendously and receive a lot of help from his printed messages. However, Bro
Nee’s explanation in “Rethinking the Work” still does not trump the fact (many
regions with more than one localities yet one singular church) written in this
verse.
According to the Bibles I have, NIV, NAS, Amplified Bible, and yes, the Recovery
version, (which is based on the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek text) the Greek
word “church” in Act 9:31 is singular. If we take together the verse you
mentioned (Acts 15:41) with Act 9:31. The only conclusion is either the bible is
self-contradicting (Acts Act 9:31 vs. Act 15:41), or the insistence of one
locality one church cannot be correct.
simeond Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #422 on: Today at 10:13:25 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on Today at 09:23:45 AM
This is an incorrect claim by T. Austin Sparks: “He would have seen to it that
in some way a precise and unmistakable prototype existed, with adequate
safeguards against all the confusion and misapprehension which has actually
eventuated.” The reason this is wrong is because in Revelation 2 & 3 we see all
the problems the Church would experience, becoming a shadow of itself. In the
first century Ephesus period, for example, there is the first love that was
lost. Yes, it was lost that quickly. Then, in the last Church period (today), we
see the Church is neither hot nor cold, but luke warm and confused in “differing
opinions,” the meaning of Laodicean.
Do I understand from this that you would be able to discern, among all the
gatherings on earth today, which ones suffer which problems pointed out in
Revelation 2 & 3? Which ones have left their first love? Which ones have become
married to the world? Which ones have become luke-warm? You, in your study and
wisdom, can discern this?
Is it possible for a group, standing on the ground of locality, to lose their
first love? Is it possible for them to become luke-warm? Given how adamently you
talk about locality, it is amazing this isn't one of the central problems
discussed by John regarding the problems that the chruches will face (and, as
you put it, these are the ONLY problems the church will face: "in Revelation 2 &
3 we see all the problems the Church would experience, becoming a shadow of
itself.") Where, in Revelation - the "shadow of ALL the problems the church will
face" is the discussion about rejecting the "local expression"?
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #423 on: Today at 10:34:05 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simeod,
A household was considered the church because it is part of the church locality,
especially considering the fact the church locality only had that one meeting
place when the Church was starting out. This is quite reasonable. If you come to
my house to fellowship, you may say others it is the church at Commitotruth’s
house because I am part of the unit of the church in my locality, or if you say
you fellowship with the brethren in the church of Corinth, that is acceptable
too. The boundary is established by Corinth as the locality with many meeting
places within it or just one meeting place. But never once do you find in the
Bible the church of Achaia because Achaia is a district or region. For the
normal Christian, these are non-issues, but people seem to want to make a big
deal about it to divide the body of Christ falsely. We should not abstract away
this truth. The reason why Paul said the church in X locality is because it was
the church in X locality, not because there were competitors or there was no
other name, for there was always competitors in one form or another, that never
changes, and there is always true local expression in which God causes them to
try to get along, but that can’t be achieved if they divide the body of Christ
falsely and lost the first love. Understand what you are going through right
now. You are letting your flesh rationalize false teaching. Let it go. When Paul
writes letters to a church locale, he is not writing to false groups, but all
believers in a locality. Nor would he have time to address all the tares. By
sending the letter addressed to the name of the locality, this automatically
identifies the local boundary or arrangement and is not mutually exclusive of
his writings and corrections to those churches. In fact his writings admonish to
maintain the unit of the locality in harmony, not to exceed this boundary, nor
shrink it. Do you see the flaw in your words: “Would he stress the local
arrangement? Or would he stress the truth on which the groups may or may not be
misguided?” Mutual exclusivity statements like this are considered of no
account, so let it go. This is an excuse of the flesh: “In short, there are
soooooo many more variables today then there were in Paul's day.” Oh the
rationalizations of the flesh never cease in the fleshly! This would not be
instructive to say: “the "church in X” [denomination] would be instructive if
there were several different groups of different names and denominations but he
still chose to refer to them as "church in X" [denomination],” because at the
outset it promotes division and dissension of the unit of the church as T.
Austin Sparks said unwittingly. It would be wrong to say there were not
denominations already formed at the outset since some in a local church were
saying “I am of Apollos” and “I am of Cephas,” and even some were saying “I am
of Christ” [congregationalism and independent church buildings]. All
denominations, sects and cults are started by one person. Heck, even the name of
the person being used was not even started by that person, but people use their
name in vain as seen here. There is but one thing for you to do. Repent. Tarry
no longer. These are simple truths, not to be violated or it keeps the church in
ruin. If you wonder why the church is in ruin, look no further than Scriptural
locality that was lost in the first century. How much more do you think it is
lost now? God explains how lost it is now in the 7 church periods (Rev. 2 & 3).
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #424 on: Today at 11:07:12 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwtss,
You said, “This is exactly the same reasoning WL used to try to explain away the
singular church in this verse”. Witness Lee is not trying to explain away the
Church universal, and if he was, certainly he would not use this reason. You
said, “Such explanation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the one locality one
church teaching IS CORRECT”. Since Witness Lee is not trying to explain away the
universal Church in the first place, and if he was, he certainly wouldn’t use
this assumption. The universal Church is one thing, and the church locality is
an expression of the universal Church locally. Therefore, I think this comment
of yours applies more to you: “However, the logic is incorrect or reversed
because one cannot explain away the facts depicted in the bible text that does
not fit an explanation put forward by a man”. Let us not forget though Witness
Lee did exceed the boundary of locality and a region of localities by creating a
central control center. Now, about Watchman Nee, you write, “However, Bro Nee’s
explanation in Rethinking the Work still does not trump the fact (many regions
with more than one localities yet one singular church) written in this verse”.
Nee is not trying to trump this fact, for he agrees with it as Rethinking the
Work proves. You’re just sinning bearing false witness because your flesh wars
against the Spirit of truth. The KJV, NKJV, Webster, Young, Darby, HNV, and many
others all say “churches” or assemblies. An assembly is whole church locality.
In the case of other versions that say Church, they are trying to say the
universal Church. The reason for the confusion why some versions say “church” is
because of the wording of the text misread: “Then had the churches rest
throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in
the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied” (A.V.).
There is nothing wrong with the text, but some who are careless will misread it
as follows: “So the church throughout all…” Because several regions are
mentioned at once, some get confused whether to use the word “church” or
“churches”. By comparison when referring to the churches in a region it is
always effectively said, “churches of X”. The same principle would apply here as
well, and should not cause one to change the principle. All the churches in
these regions are the Church universal along with all other churches on the
globe in their regions. Have you ever had trouble splicing an apple down the
center? That’s what has happened here. Because some don’t love the truth, they
make this careless mistake of overassuming. My prayer is that you read deeply
and very carefully what I have just written for your edification.
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #425 on: Today at 11:39:28 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simeod,
You asked, “Do I understand from this that you would be able to discern, among
all the gatherings on earth today, which ones suffer which problems pointed out
in Revelation 2 & 3?” I am only human. I would not have the time to examine them
all, nor would any man. By the Holy Spirit we can discern the truth of them. You
have asked, “Is it possible for a group, standing on the ground of locality, to
lose their first love?” The first love of the ground of locality is not lost if
it is kept, but the first love with regard to other matters of God’s love may be
lost. This does not mean they lose their salvation. Rather, it means they lose
their rewards in the millennial kingdom-to-come. You are in incorrect in this
assumption: “it is amazing this isn't one of the central problems discussed by
John regarding the problems that the chruches will face”. Let me first say, you
should be reverent to God by not calling the churches “churches”. This lost love
of locality was mentioned by John for the Ephesus first century church period to
test the apostles (2.2). And Paul said don’t divide the body of Christ falsely
with “I am of Apollos” and “I am of Cephas” (denominationalism), or “I am of
Christ” (congregationalism), because the only way to divide the church is
according to church locality. This is God’s way for the local expression of the
Church to be independent units as predecessors of the cities in the millennium,
and miniatures of the new city in the new earth. These are the transitions along
God’s timeline. No matter how much disagreement there may be, they must find a
way to get along in a local unit. God requires this unit to be responsible unto
itself. The "shadow of ALL the problems the church will face" is the discussion
about rejecting the "local expression," and other problems. Why not stop
searching for straws?
irwtss Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #426 on: Today at 11:46:29 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your (over)zealousness about Bro. Nee reminds me of a person by the name of Troy
Brooks. Curiously, that brother also resorts to name calling (…bearing false
witness because your flesh wars against the Spirit of truth, don’t love the
truth… etc) if he thinks someone offended Bro Nee (who is with the Lord).
There are many translations from the a few Greek texts available, to different
languages, including the few English translations you mentioned (KJV, NKJV,
Webster, Young, Darby, HNV. B the way, NKJV has a footnote about the word
“church” in Act 9:31, stating that it is singular in the original Greek text.)
Nestle-Aland 26 is accepted as one of the best Greek texts available. In this
Greek text, the Greek word church in is Act 9:31 singular. There is nothing
wrong with the Greek text but there are some variations in the translations,
which are according to the understanding/revelation of the Bible respective
translators. It is definitely not someone “who are careless will misread it…”. I
think we cannot have further edifying dialogue because you think Bro. Nee (whom
I also respect) cannot be wrong.
simeond Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #427 on: Today at 11:47:18 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commitotruth,
I am, as all of us are, prone to operating by the flesh. You seem to be better
than in recognizing words of the flesh. I have this fault where I am first
willing to hear from a brother and consider his heart, his concerns, his
wrestlings - before I chastise him for being fleshly. The princliple behind
that? Not trusting my own interpretations of the truth to the point where I
willing to regall a brother whose only "sin" to date is asking questions.
That said, I have a few further questions for you. Believe me, I am wrestling
with this and don't have a predetermined answer (is my lack of assuredness
fleshly?).
1) Is there anyone - any group - on earth today to propery respests the teaching
of "localism" in your understanding?
2) How would you go about teaching and correcting the rest of Christiantiy about
this doctrine?
3) Is it possible for a group who has appreciation for the "ground of locality"
to "leave their first love" or to become "lukewarm"? That is, is there a reason
John focuses on THOSE failings but does not pointedly address the central
concern of locality?
Do you propose to correct Christianity - the myriad believers who don't "get"
localism - by chastising them as "fleshly"? I'm not saying I disagree with you
regarding the "ground of locality". There is much to consider regarding it and
what the Word has to say. I'm just not so sure about what kind of fruits your
insistence on it and your method of insistence will have for the mutual
encouragement and building up that His Body so desperately needs.
simeond Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #428 on: Today at 11:57:40 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on Today at 11:39:28 AM
You have asked, “Is it possible for a group, standing on the ground of locality,
to lose their first love?” The first love of the ground of locality is not lost
if it is kept, but the first love with regard to other matters of God’s love may
be lost.
Please remind me what the "first love" was referring to in Revelation. I seem to
remember the "first love" being Christ Himself. You seem to think it can refer
to myriad different things. I don't know any part of the Word which describes or
even references the "first love of the ground of locality." Is the "ground of
locality" and "Christ Himself" a co-extensive set? If so, based on what? If not,
then I ask my question again: is it possible to be absolute for the "ground of
locality" and still leave your first love, Christ Himself?
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #429 on: Today at 11:57:57 AM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Austin Sparks writes, “…so that we might have a Jerusalem or Antioch Blue
Book or Manual for Christian churches,” for he was against such things.
Understand Scriptural locality is not a Blue Book or Manual, but it is a
spiritual reality. Men will try to abstract away spiritual reality or they may
even blame it as being too much like a manual. Who then decides? By the Holy
Spirit the Word can show us: the church of Ephesus, church of Corinth, church of
Antioch. The local expressions of the beautiful Church! And so Sparks agrees,
“If Satan cannot force to the one extreme of superiority to the written Word, he
will try the opposite of bondage to the letter without the spirit”. Sad to say
though, Sparks is not abiding in his own words of truth because he does not
accept God’s loving Word on Scriptural locality seen throughout the New
Testament. He says it is difficult for the Church “to understand or even believe
that God can do His work without committees,” which is why God has just three
major positions in the Church for administration purposes, no more. First, there
are the Apostles directly commissioned by God for a region of churches. Then,
there are the Elders of a locality appointed by Apostles of a region. And
finally, we can not forget the Elders of a meeting place whom would be approved
by the Elders of a locality. In this Biblical Church structure, we see
simplicity which allows for maximum spirituality.
howie Message
(Offline) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #430 on: Today at 12:36:51 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may want to be more careful about your careless bashing of T. Austin-Sparks
Commitotruth, because your beloved Watchman Nee looked at him as a mentor. If he
looked at Sparks as a mentor, how much more you? Some time of reflection over
the Word in light of what he said would certainly be reasonable before reverting
to your current ideology.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:40:43 PM by howie » Report to moderator Logged
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #431 on: Today at 12:52:35 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irtwss,
You were not pleased with being shown you were “bearing false witness because
your flesh wars against the Spirit of truth, don’t love the truth” even though
you said “However, Bro Nee’s explanation in Rethinking the Work still does not
trump the fact (many regions with more than one localities yet one singular
church) written in this verse;” to which I truthfully shared with you, “Nee is
not trying to trump this fact, for he agrees with it as Rethinking the Work
proves. You’re just sinning bearing false witness because your flesh wars…” Try
to refrain from name dropping: “reminds me of a person by the name of Troy
Brooks.” What I have told you is the truth, so why do you sin bearing false
witness, accusing falsely, by blaming: “also resorts to name calling” and
“(over)zealousness about Bro. Nee”? This is not love. I am not overzealous. I
showed what Nee really believed after you mentioned him first when you said: “T
Austin Sparks mentioned Act 9:31 in one of his messages when he spoke of Nee’s
teaching of the Ground of Locality”. Was I not supposed to respond with the
truth? I showed you how T. Austin Sparks was wrong and now I show you your
over-zealousness against Watchman Nee on a forum that you hang out on which is
called the Watchman Nee forum. Some might say you have issues against the truth
and are obsessed with Watchman Nee. Your flesh needs to believe, “if he thinks
someone offended Bro Nee (who is with the Lord)” is the reason for showing you
how you misread the Word of God which Watchman Nee agrees with in his writings
and Sparks does not. This is the excuse of your flesh because you need to blame
something rather than accept the truth. When people are wrong, they ought to be
told the truth, as I did for you about your false teaching and Sparks’. Is that
not what normal loving Christians do? Watchman Nee is not Lord, so why do you
revile with such a comment, since Nee is not the Lord? He was just right about
this matter. And you are not.
The NKJV by the way does not say churches are “singular in the original Greek
text,” but rather a text, “NU-Text reads church . . . was edified”. There is not
one single text that is all powerful, otherwise that becomes idolatry. The Bible
is an Open Book. Given the explanation to compare all other examples in the
Bible for region of churches, we receive by the Holy Spirit that “churches” is
the correct rendering. Otherwise, the Bible contradicts itself, and that is not
possible. The original was “churches”. Some may want to say that “church” should
be used because it is the Church universal, but the Church universal is not 3 or
4 regions, but all regions. You are not God, so don’t say things like this,
“There is nothing wrong with the Greek text” for all texts have some weakness.
That is why we use the Open Bible, comparing all texts and reasoning through by
the Holy Spirit with members of the body of Christ. The reason we can not
dialogue, in actuality – not the reason you give - is because you apparently
have issues with Watchman Nee, and that is why you accuse, “I think we cannot
have further edifying dialogue because you think Bro. Nee (whom I also respect)
cannot be wrong”. Since I don’t think Watchman Nee cannot be wrong, again, you
are sinning bearing false witness? How many more times are you going to do this
before you repent of your over-zealousness against those who know the truth?
Will you ever repent? Definitely, the reason for this behavior is caused by
those “who are careless will misread it…” This is a false statement, therefore,
your statement is absolutely erroneous that “some variations in the
translations, which are according to the understanding/revelation of the Bible
respective translators” as it pertains to our discussion of Acts 9:31 about
“church” or “churches”. My prayer is for you to have a change of mind to show
you love God, to be a testimony of His grace, and may the Holy Spirit be
exhibited in your life.
Brent B Message
(Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #432 on: Today at 01:17:01 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what Sparks said about church "blueprint" is insightful, as it
encapsulates what I have tried to articulate before on this subject. Acts is not
much help as it is largely a historical account - of how, for instance, they
replaced the 12th apostle with a game of chance - and organized the church in
Jerusalem as a communist commune.
Localism is just such an artificial blueprint, never acknowledged or taught by
the apostles or Jesus. It is an inference, an inductive rationalization based
upon trivia in epistle salutation. This thread has more than established the
problems and fatal flaws of this absurd construct.
It is only a word game, and goes no further than semantics to grant the
authority of the church. This silliness is about as superficial and nonsensical
as it gets. Christianity has longed moved past these kinds of word games to a
discussion of what informs the common faith we share. That is, after all, the
only scriptural prescription for oneness. That they arrive at the unity of the
faith. Unity among believers can only be accomplished via the once and for all
delivered faith.
Divisive teachings which insist upon a certain blueprint for organization - such
as localism - are only demanded by the groups which utilize them for their own
vanity. While claiming oneness, the ground of locality only sows division and
exclusion. They are only fooling themselves. No one else is paying attention.
Funny that there is no new testament passage or term which mentions the concept
of a "ground" beneath the chruch. Everyone else looks askance and chuckles at
this arrogant and grandiose self importance. It is a ridiculous comparison of
themselves among themselves.
There are endless impracticalities to localism, there are at least 3 violations
of this alleged principle in scripture which destroy it, ect, ect. This game is
over.
I would like to further discuss the idea of why the Lord did not institute a
precise blueprint for church organization.
Commitotruth
Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #433 on: Today at 02:19:31 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simeon,
Understand you are still at fault even though you proclaim yourself, “Not
trusting my own interpretations,” while still trusting them. The Bible says be
“not doubletongued” (1 Tim. 3:. Were you speaking of another, or were you really
trying to point to self, when you said, “where I willing to regall a brother
whose only sin to date is asking questions”? Your sin-to-date, not the least of
which, is rejecting the churches founded on the apostles to appoint elders of a
church locality which “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]” (Eph. 2:20).
You asked, “Is there anyone - any group - on earth today to propery respests the
teaching of "localism" in your understanding?” Yes. And they don’t call it
localism. They call it, reverently, Church locality or local churches or
churches. No need for men’s fleshly ism’s. Next you asked, “How would you go
about teaching and correcting the rest of Christiantiy about this doctrine?”
Simple. Find a number of men and women who are Apostles who agree, just as
occurred in the first century before the first love was lost to begin reclaim
this lost ground for Revival. Next, “Is it possible for a group who has
appreciation for the ground of locality to leave their first love or to become
lukewarm? That is, is there a reason John focuses on THOSE failings but does not
pointedly address the central concern of locality?” All Christians can fall,
though we can not lose eternal life. As soon as you say “group,” immediately you
divide the body of Christ falsely. God does not divide the body of Christ on
groups, only by locality. The reason John does not say all the things that the
lost love entail is because it would be too long a list and out of proportion
with other six church periods in Revelation 2 & 3. Another question asked, “Do
you propose to correct Christianity - the myriad believers who don't get
localism - by chastising them as fleshly?” Yes, only if after they still can’t
repent when shown the truth. You said, “I'm not saying I disagree with you
regarding the ground of locality”. Then stop speaking as if you do: “I'm just
not so sure about what kind of fruits your insistence on it and your method of
insistence will have for the mutual encouragement and building up that His Body
so desperately needs.” So let me get this right. You think it is better for
those here in this discussion forum to continue long threads about why they
think there should be no such thing as a church of Ephesus or church of
Jerusalem or church of Philippi? You really think it is better to continue to
live a lie insistently? Don’t you love people enough to stand on solid ground?
The building up of the body of Christ can never occur as long as this lie
pervades. Don’t you get it? Christ is not going to return until locality is a
global phenomenon? How can Christ return to reign over the nations and His
overcomers over localities if they have no working model prior to His return?
God works in transitions over lengthy periods of time. Ergo, there must be this
global Revival first. And it is not good enough to say you are unsure. That’s
like saying you are unsure whether the big bang happened all by itself. The
proof is clearly revealed. So know it is a matter of your conscience needing to
be cleansed to accept the truth unequivocally. My prayer is for you to stop
waffling. God can’t use you in that condition.
Mauro Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #434 on: Today at 02:39:07 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Commitotruth on Today at 09:23:45 AM
Remember, T. Austin Sparks is Laodicean.
Commitotruth:
Since you are the self-appointed expert on the forum on all things Watchman Nee
I wish to point out to you that this statement is one of the most outrageous and
also the most ridiculous and laughable I have probably witnessed on this forum.
Whatever it means or is supposed to mean is beyond me.
Let me try and make a small adjustment to your perceptions about the church and
the churches, about right and wrong, about Laodicea and Philadelphia: the
Christian walk is not about little square boxes of choice. It is about having an
intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; it is about knowing that
Christ lives in me. The endless reams of posts you produce on all the opinions
about the church and the churches has proved nothing to me except that you have
an opinion about it all. You have not convinced me of anything and you will
never be able to because I have heard it all before, I have even believed and
taught it before, but I have come to realize that all these teachings about
municipal borders, about cities, about the church local and the church universal
have no value. They divide but they do not build up.
Have you noticed that you are engaged in these discussions with mostly yourself.
Nobody around here really cares about what you say because we have been through
it so many times.
You could do much worse than read some of the ministry on Christ by Theodore
Austin-Sparks (whom I am not defending or protecting) than the plethora of posts
on the ground of locality. It is a deduced teaching that has caused untold
confusion and hurt.
Commitotruth
Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #435 on: Today at 02:48:49 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simeod,
You asked, “Please remind me what the first love was referring to in
Revelation”. The full scope of this is for another study. Know that it comprises
foremost locality, since we know that is what has been lost outwardly. It has
been lost because of inward losses. You correctly observe, “I seem to remember
the first love being Christ Himself”. The loss of relationship with Christ
produces many other losses. Your thought, “You seem to think it can refer to
myriad different things”. That’s correct, for truth flows from Christ. If it
does not, you have the heresy of antinomianism. Do you? You’re just being
belligerent: “I don't know any part of the Word which describes or even
references the first love of the ground of locality." I already said where in
reply #405, so why did you not receive the truth the first time? This obstinacy
needs to die on the cross. Don’t shut your mind down in passivity. This is not
love. Do you see how your mind is ever stirring to reject His Word: “Is the
ground of locality and Christ Himself a co-extensive set?” These big tricky
phrases are for heady people. Why is something as simple as the church of
Ephesus and the church of Corinth so difficult for you? Is it not your flesh
that keeps needing to find fault with the locality of the churches? You need to
stop asking the same questions again and again after you have already been given
the answer: you asked “is it possible to be absolute for the ground of locality
and still leave your first love, Christ Himself?” All doctrine is true for it
reflects spiritual reality. By accepting this spiritual principle, one can most
certainly lose their first love in other areas with Christ. But the first love
of locality is most precious because it prevents denominationalism and
congregationalism. And any differences within a locality brothers and sisters
must face because they recognize themselves according the light of the
Scriptures as literally a miniature of the new city and the new earth. The other
fruit of love, may not always have the power to do so. Praise the Lord!
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of
Locality"
« Reply #436 on: Today at 03:07:12 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
howie,
I neither bashed nor was careless in the words I spoke about T. Austin Sparks,
but I understand you need to sin against me by bearing false witness, “You may
want to be more careful about your careless bashing of T. Austin-Sparks”. You
ought to repent from your false accusation and harboring the same false teaching
as Sparks. Stop declaring things from self, for that is selfish. Watchman Nee
was fully aware of this particular false teaching of Sparks and Kinnear
(relatives), and certainly would have told them so (which is why Kinnear an
Sparks reacted emotionally), for brothers should correct brothers when they are
wrong. Helping brothers and sisters glorifies God. As I understand it, Sparks
was the closest person for Nee to look up to and he was respectful of Sparks,
just as I am respectful Sparks despite his false teaching. Much forgiveness is
given because I understand the Church has been in ruin since it lost its first
love, so most people, including Sparks, were oblivious to what needed to be
reached in their conscience about Biblical locality. For Revival, locality needs
to be reclaimed and not the way the Leeists do it. I realize it is your desire
to think “Some time of reflection over the Word in light of what he [Sparks]
said would certainly be reasonable before reverting to your current ideology.”
Realize that light has already entered my spirit by the Holy Spirit on the
matter of locality which is not an ideology for such revelation enters through
the Spirit in agreement with the Word of God. Such a simple truth rejected by
the Church! It is shameful! You saw how I showed you in Spark’s writings his
thought is wrong. When God reveals a truth to you, you don’t need to keep
reading those that are wrong. Satan may want you to, but a spiritual Christian
will stop him in his tracks. Don’t be duplicitous and continue to read writing
that leads you astray. My prayer for you is that you repent of lack of clarity
on the matter of locality when you have already been shown the truth.
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #437 on: Today at 03:26:13 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing to say really about Brent B's post, like I give detailed
replies to others, but for you to just observe his pompous attitude as he
violates the warning to not say "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Cephas"
(denominational), or "I am of Christ" (congregational), and thus dividing the
body of Christ falsely. In the Bible we only see the churches divided according
to locality. This is the love the Ephesus church period lost. And it is also the
love that will be a Revival before the return of Christ. You can go with the
pompous and crass who want to give you ECT's, and thank God that is not our
future, or you can try to reclaim the first love that was lost, by finding
Apostles in agreement to agree. This agreement will be shown in a certain number
of questions to establish their agreement so the Church can know their authority
to appoint Elders of a locality: "hast tried them which say they are apostles"
(Rev. 2.2). Know that Brent B can't stop this move of the
Holy Spirit. All he can do is watch and wait as the tares. The tares just
self-declare things while they themselves divide the body of Christ falsely with
their corporations or congregationalism or nothing at all for that matter.
Whatever their point of pride is, it is to reject
Biblical locality,
where the apostles of a regional of churches traveled to localities to appoint
elders to take care of them and approve the many elders of meeting places
within, like for example, in Rome, which had many meeting places. This is proper
cause and effect, not a legalistic blueprint like is seen in denominations that
exceed the boundary of Scriptural locality, or congregationalism which is too
small a scope or nothing at all in independency. With locality the major
problems are solved, because believers consider the locality the unit of the
church and seek to get along in harmony despite differences, rather than
remaining divided with 3 or 4 denominations on one street intersection. How
foolish are men's ways and the ways of the tares such as Brent B. We should
never come to God without the blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins.
Notice Brent B's hostility to the replacement of the 12th apostle, rejecting God's Word: " And God hath set some in the church, first apostles" (1 Cor. 12.28). He accuses it of being chance, but it was not, for God knew the roll of the dice and both men to be selected from were equally qualified, so they let God decide whom to choose through God's foreknowledge. Brent B is a calvinist, so he does not believe that God has the infinite foreknowledge to predestinate by foreknowing our free-choice (Rom. 8.29, John 3.16,18). Because there is no faith, Brent Be needs to believe God premakes people for salvation like robots as a lesser god would (gnosticism) and is a denial of original sin (pelagian) because the original produces the fall of man, but does not make him total deprave to kill the image of God unable to come to the cross to receive saving grace. How foolish are the ways of a heady salvation and Satanic grace!
Don't reject God's ground: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3.15). When they "come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders" (Acts 15.4). Know the church localities "are built upon the foundation of the apostles" (Eph. 2.20). "For this reason I left you in [a region], that you should set in order the things that are lacking [wanting, defective or which remain], and appoint elders in every city [town, or remote area] as I commanded [instructed, appointed, charged or directed] you" (Titus 1.5). "And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed" (Acts 14.23). There are evil men all around us who will openly reject these truths. Consider them of no account for they have nothing to offer in life. They merely sow division and exclusivity in their pet teachings and carnality. Sure, they say there is something wrong with the church of Ephesus and the church of Smyrna in the churches of Asia Minor. They say there is unending problems with this way. But then they don't say what are those problems, nor are they even able to prove what they don't say. This is selfish. Degrading God's way of setting up the churches founded on the apostles is itself ultimately the passivity of a dullard.
Let us get back to the truth of the exact blueprint of the Scriptures and stop forsaking God's loving Word. As we do so, forget those who are arrogant and hostile to God's way in Christ who consider appropriate addressing in the Epistles as merely trivial or vain salutation. It is not the case at all. Every word in the Bible is God-breathed. It is their wish when God speaks it is only an inference or inductive relativism, but in fact in reality, God is being very specific and loving, because there is a reason for such speaking. He knows men's flesh, that they love to divide the body of Christ falsely in denominations, exceeding the boundary of locality, so God institutes Biblical locality which prevents denominationalism, even something too small - a congregationalism.
The pride of men laugh when they don't want to accept a basic truth of the Scriptures is blasphemy. They downplay the churches as well as the universal Church as a "chruch". This is not reverence towards God. This is irreverent. This game is over played by the tares. Revival will stop them in their tracks as they look on with clenched jaws and grinding teeth at the phenomena of Biblical locality taking hold. All their ideas are suddenly crumbling before their eyes in the face of God reclaiming the first love that was lost in the Church of church locality. We should stay with the truth: why did God create an exact blueprint for Scriptural locality (not a legastic demonational print, but one that reflects reality)? Because it works!
Go to source of their confusion, why they can not accept the truth apart from their not being saved, for those that are unsaved. When this question is asked, the answer becomes most telling! They have denied proper cause and effect. They reject the work of the apostles that flow from Christ. And so, naturally, they reject what flows from the apostles to the elders of a locality, so on and so forth. They say there is endless errors to this truth, but then they are totally impotent at being able to show it. The point of pride and belligerency is at the center of their spirit from the evil spirit to produce such mindless self-declarations. It is akin to someone who blocks a doorway while people are trying to get through. They say, They are in the middle of a conversation, walk around them, don't interrupt them, but there is no place to walk around. Then they even accuse you for disturbing their comatose way they have always known. You know people like this. Think of Brent B. If he is not a non-Christian, then no one is. Such are self-centered and superficial people who are always seeking to exalt themselves in all settings in front of the doorway.
They don't know humility because they don't know Christ. Sure they say they do, but we know them by their fruit. Men say they accept the faith of oneness in Christ and unity of the Church, but then they stand in the doorway blocking the flow of life. Their fruit does not match reality. They are trying to block the way to salvation as well as overcoming in Christ. Spiritual Christians can easily see through them, but carnal Christians may yet be deceived. Tares are fully on board with the tares, and we should not cast pearls before these swine. God's exacting Word is too precise for them, so it is a word game, or something else they blame. It has to be, so they think, because they deny His foreordained Word. The faith delivered onto the saints once and for all was given because of the choice we have made to receive increased faith, and thus flows the fruit of the Spirit and works abiding in God's will.
Mauro Message (Offline) Facing the Mirror
« Reply #438 on: Today at 03:55:21 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect you will from now on mostly be talking to yourself on this forum seeing that there is only room for you and yourself in your posts, who are all devoid of any love and compassion. By the way, you are still ignoring my question: are you Troy?
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of Locality"
« Reply #439 on: Today at 04:02:31 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howie,
You wrote, “Can anyone deny that in Christian history this has happened? It is
not just we local churchers who claim that we have the blueprint, many different
groups of believers throughout history and still today claim that they are
practicing the church as prescribed in the New Testament”. Yes, many claim they
have the blueprint. There is a right way and a wrong way. The right way is not 5
levels of hierarchy in the EOC or 12 levels in the RCC. Forgive me if I am off a
level in the RCC, but you get the point. There is just Apostles for a region,
Elders of a locality and Elders of a meeting place. This is the way it was done
in the Bible, so it is good enough for us to day. If you can’t repent from
changing the meaning of the term “churches” to non-localities, then you know why
the Church is in ruin. It’s because of you. And the tares in the appearance of
the kingdom of heaven who try to look like wheat have convinced those in the
Church to let Satan in.
It is not the case at all that Scriptural locality is a blueprint, for it is a
local expression of the Church, because the body of Christ still has its sin
nature; locality prevents the sin nature from going denominational if the
believer abides in locality. The real reason it is “so confusing to arrive at
what the blueprint is” is because it is not a blueprint you should seek and it
is confusing because of your flesh can’t accept something as simple as
Scriptural locality. I tell you the truth. If you fail to test the apostles
(Rev. 2.2), you will get exactly what you deserve. In politics, if you vote in
someone carelessly, you will get exactly what you deserve. Apostles are chosen
by God, but v.2 says you still have to test them to see if they are authentic.
The way to do this is to ask them a certain number of questions. There is no
other way, for this is God’s way. Men will delude themselves, “30 years ago,
walls between believers were sky high. Today, that is not the case at all”. What
is the truth of this mistaken assumption? The truth is they can’t agree on any
Biblical teaching, because we are in the Laodicean church period of differing
opinions. God says believers are neither hot nor cold, but just lukewarm. It is
time to wake up! And I am not speaking to the tares, for they hath not an ear to
hear anyway. We should not cast pearls to the swine. It is beyond their ability
to understand for they have chosen to go another way by try to divide the
members of the body of Christ falsely. The words of men do not reflect the
prophecies in the Bible in Revelation. At the end of the day Sparks speaks lots
of words to reject a truth – church locality. It is just a cover-up. A spiritual
Christian can see right through it’s pettiness. It is selfish and self-centered
for his particular congregationalism which he just can’t forsake. We should
never say “I am of Christ” as if another is not. Never divide the corporate
Christ smaller than a locality and never larger. As long as you continue to do
so, you will continue to get what you always got. The reason it is so difficult
to get others to examine the truth of locality, will the same the reason it will
be the greatest Revival ever known to the Church.
Look how Satan penetrates men’s minds with their words: “It is very difficult to
find other local churchers who are willing to actually even objectively study
the ground of locality” A local church is already a ground of locality. Howie,
you are referring to enterprises, corporations, organizations and demonations
which God does not divide the Church by, but men do. You really need to repent
from the way you keep spelling churches, for that is totally irreverent. You
know better. Here is how men accuse the Church and God: “Spirit may lead one
way, the ground causes men to use devices”. The truth is, the Spirit removes
devices to bring to the Church the locality of the churches. With the removal of
devices such as denominations and congregational mega churches or independent
churches, what flows out is Biblical locality deviceless, since there is just
the Elders of a locality managing beautifully with no man-made entities in
between.
Here is a prophecy to show you God’s plan. Christ will not return until
Scriptural locality is reclaimed. The Holy Spirit has given me this promise, and
it is an answered prayer, only awaiting fulfillment when the Church is reading
to listen to God’s will. I am already there as I wait for others to accept
God’s. My prayer for those who have heart for God, since you are already saved,
is to do what God desires, which is to assemble Apostles informally in agreement
to appoint Elders of a locality, test the Apostles too. I am an Apostle for God
has directly commissioned by to set up the churches, but I cannot move
independently. First we need 12 Apostles in agreement upon a certain number of
questions we will agree together to ask ourselves and the Apostles to follow in
setting up the churches. Only then once the Revival has been to God’s good
pleasure, He shall return. Praise the Lord!
Say be gone to denominational division for they will always cause "spiritual pride, bigotry, exclusiveness, suspicion". There is one way, one blueprint (not the blueprint of legalism with 1001 denominations, but the blueprint of Biblical locality). Until the Apostles are right, only then will the localities be right, not before. So the right thing to do is seek for the right Apostles in agreement! This truth flows from the Word, which is a proper control employed by God only accepted by those who have inward life to know it is in agreement with God's loving Word. Those who don't know this stop short of the glory of God. When more and more apostles come to agree, that is more than one man, then it will take effect much to the displeasure of the tares who try to look like the saved wheat in the kingdom of heaven. Delusion would have you believe lines in the sand are fading away, but the same old diabolically opposite teachings remain as opposite to one another as ever. This is proof, the tares are getting worse, and those in Christ are standing their ground, despite those who want to replicate the Church.
Commitotruth
Message (Online) Re: Discuss: The "Ground of
Locality"
« Reply #440 on: Today at 04:28:51 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro,
I am not as you revile, “Since you are the self-appointed expert”. Self plays no
play in what I tell you about the Word of God, as well as your hostility towards
Watchman Nee. The truth is reflected in what you believe. If you don’t accept
the truth as revealed in a relationship with Christ by rejecting certain things
outright, then you are just being couth and cunning as you blame. You like your
flesh too much. Your very answer to such questions shows your lack because you
will do all you can to avoid the question, but proclaim the relationship, yet
you disagree with the truth from the Spirit of truth to agree with the Word. You
are in a place that is as deceived as you. It’s like a bunch of drunks cheering
themselves on. Through the question, this is how we find out what is really
going on, not by reams of posts and excuses, ganging posts against one who is
abiding in God’s will. God deals specifically because this is love and so we
have seen the locality of the churches. Your sin is not difficult at all to
uncover. Here it is: “I have heard it all before, I have even believed and
taught it before, but I have come to realize that all these teachings about
municipal borders, about cities, about the church local and the church universal
have no value. They divide but they do not build up.” Let me tell you what
really happened. You were in a cult to begin with, and you got soar because you
should get soar when you are in a cult. But this does not change anything about
the truth. The truth remains, that the churches are founded on the apostles to
appoint elders of a locality. Many men do not love the body of Christ (the
universal Church) for obvious reasons deep down inside. And because they don’t
love the Church, how could they ever love the beauty of the Church in its local
expressions as miniatures of the new city and new earth. How could such a one
ever receive the rewards of reigning with Christ with an iron rod to reign over
these localities as is told in Luke 19. My prayer for you is that you are one of
those who escapes the drunken party spirit of bashing truth.
Mauro Message
(Offline) Facing the Mirror
« Reply #438 on: Today at 03:55:21 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect you will from now on mostly be talking to yourself on this forum
seeing that there is only room for you and yourself in your posts, who are all
devoid of any love and compassion.
By the way, you are still ignoring my question: are you Troy?
Commitotruth Message (Online) Re: Facing the Mirror
« Reply #441 on: Today at 04:54:37 PM » Reply with quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Mauro on Today at 03:55:21 PM
I suspect you will from now on mostly be talking to yourself on this forum
seeing that there is only room for you and yourself in your posts, who are all
devoid of any love and compassion.
By the way, you are still ignoring my question: are you Troy?
Mauro
If I told you who I was, you wouldn't believe me. If I keep silent, you will
still blame me. It is better to say nothing.
Don't think I came here for a long while or to receive the ganging barrage of
posts indefinitely that are in never endingly hostile. The latter is done by men
of the flesh in false teachings, who can't repent. Leave it to the Lord if these
are actually born-again. I came here to perform a specific task for the Lord and
now that task is finished. The purpose of that task was to show the truth was
given, and still men cannot repent. The record of this conversation has been
submitted to a site that helps leeists and ex-leeists in their false teachings.
Whether they cannot repent because they, and you, are the carnalist of carnal
Christians or worse, I will not say here, because I know the reaction that will
come. Let people think about this. What we can say about such attitudes
for certain is they, and you Mario, are devoid of any love and compassion
because of a missing relationship. That would cause you to alter the Word of
God. Here is what is going to happen to you, and not just because of your
rejection of God's Word on locality, but for your other false teachings too
(these are indications, signs and false fruit by which we will know you by),
which can be easily discerned in a conversation or on the internet by asking
certain questions. Your present condition is as follows and will receive
what God says here, if you don't repent:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book"
(Rev. 22.18,19).
My prayer is for your repentance.
(Unknown)