[OBW]

YP,

I think we’re talking past each other again. I understand what you are saying.

But I was going back to Igzy’s original postulate that began with the assumption that the LC’s doctrine of “one church in one city” is viable. Then if working it out results that one group is that one and another is not defeats the very doctrine. That effectively refutes the presumption that it is true.


My postulates are more from the angle of, assuming it is true in some way other than as the LC defines it:

1. How do you define the church for purposes of that doctrine?
2. What demarcations among assemblies are acceptable?
3. What demarcations among assemblies are not acceptable?

While you may not have said it this directly, I understand you to say that the “ground of unity” should be more a statement of fact than a line of demarcation. I think that my examples are consistent with the notion that we are all one. I just took it from the arena of single assemblies in an almost first century kind of context into the 21st century where there are many assemblies and they are actually different in some aspects from one another, even within the same “denomination.”

As for my questions above, my answers, in brief, are:

1. That for purposes of this doctrine, the church is universal and is expressed in assemblies that, while not homogenous, are actually one with each other because they realize their oneness is in Christ.
2. Differences that are not in the nature of excluding others are acceptable.
3. Differences that are an exclusion of participants in another group are not acceptable.

I have omitted issues relating to determinations of true heresy, and church discipline. These are viable exclusions even if there really is only one actual assembly in any particular city.

As to the notion of “quarantine” that is something other than excommunication, I wonder if this is not more accurately in the realm of refusing certain ones to speak without necessarily excluding their participation. In any case, I’m not sure that however such a thing is practiced it would prove or disprove the LC’s ground doctrine.

I think that the problem with the teaching of oneness is in its ramifications. If it is about agreeing on all points, then it is a fallacy that cannot actually be practiced since the ones claiming to be “it” violate their own teaching. But if it is a general openness to, and oneness with, all Christians for the very reason that they are Christians, then it is very real truth that is in operation in the midst of differences of opinion and ways of practice.

I may not be saying exactly what you are, or approaching the discussion in the same manner, but I think we are saying roughly the same thing.

Igzy has postulated that the LC’s “ground” teaching is a circular fallacy if it is about unifying all believers in all assemblies within a single city under one eldership and therefore one primary set of teachings and practices. You appear to agree, but ask “what is the church?” I like that question and have included the question in my hypotheticals. But until I reread Igzy’s post, my first question was “why do we even assume that there is anything doctrinal about ground relative to the church?” The answer is because Igzy said we would assume it to be so.

I think that Igzy has started by taking the ground of the church as taught, and the church as understood by the LC and shown that as a line of demarcation, the doctrine of the ground cannot operate. Since that is how it is actually carried out, the doctrine defeats itself, although its followers cannot see that. While I had trouble sticking with his line of reasoning (mostly because I kept forgetting that he was simply assuming the LC doctrines as correct) I ultimately see what he is saying.

I like your discussion beginning with “You want to break bread in oneness with all the believers. I want to do the same. We do so separately until the Lord joins us up. It's a test of our oneness what we do at that point.” It really is not about somehow gathering all believers in an area into one place (a large football stadium??) to meet together. It is about meeting with believers, whoever they are, and not being exclusive or sectarian. I’m not even sure if mostly meeting with certain ones because of preference is an issue unless it is coupled with an exclusion of those with different preferences.

So I start by accepting that Igzy’s proposition appears sound and therefore shoots the LC’s “one church one city” doctrine, as practiced, stone cold dead. So where do we go from there? I say we look closer at what is oneness and what is unity. I think you have already done this at some level.

While Paul gave the Corinthians a long talk (almost 4 chapters) about aligning behind various teachers, was the issue that some preferred certain a teacher over others or was it that there began to be an atmosphere of competition and rivalry because of those preferences? I think it was the latter.

I receive spiritual help from a man who is part of a group that believes salvation is not certain or permanent. He is welcome at my assembly, even to speak. I am welcome at his and would be welcome to speak if I were so inclined. But as a regular matter, I prefer not to need to deal on a regular basis with the disagreement about the security of salvation and mostly meet with others who think similarly. Are we sectarian for this? Has oneness been broken?

Our assembly has regularly prayed for all others in the area. We do not pray that they will see our way. We pray that God will be worshipped. That the gospel will go out. That the believers will grow. I do not know how many other assemblies practice this kind of thing on occasion. But even if not officially done, I believe that for many, the attitude of unity exists even where such outward displays do not occur.