Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
That wasn't the question I asked, so it is surely strange you would quote part of my question in your post. The examples I gave had nothing to do with practice in a singular way. They had to do with receiving all believers based on our faith as exampled by baptism and the Lord's table.
My question, which some appeared to have understood without any problem, was simple. If you teach that all genuine Christians are part of the Body of Christ and are therefore part of the church in that city, then how do you use that understanding to create a teaching that refuses to receive the baptism or Lord's table of one of these meetings. Once you do that your teaching is creating two churches in that city, not by practice, but by nature.
|
I may have misread the emphasis of this particular point, and therefore the thrust of your post. But to spring from a post that is suggesting that scripture does not prescribe one church (presumably meaning one assembly) to the start off of "Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city?" appeared (to me) to be a semi-rhetorical question asking something like "well if it doesn't support/prescribe only one, then would you say it supports/prescribes two?". (Not sure how to end the punctuation of a statement that concludes with a question within quotes. Seems weird the way I did it but confusing without the last period. That is why I was only "OK in English back in school.)
So if you meant "support" and not "prescribe," my answer would be "yes, it does support two." But if your meaning was "prescribe," I would disagree. It does not prescribe anything.
While the whole of your post could be led in either direction, the blunt opening question as to whether it supports two gave it a combative tone (again, to me) suggesting that the rest should be understood as refuting the rejection of only one assembly in a city.
I get your questions about some groups that have some need to rebaptize believers in their water and in their way. And there surely are some of those. That is a different issue from whether they are legitimate assemblies of the church (universal and in the city). It does point to certain levels of divisiveness. But meeting with any particular group for whatever reason will always have some level of divisiveness in it.
And if someone returns with a statement like "well just meet with whoever is the closest group no matter what they are like" then you might have a chance at no divisiveness. Until you honestly believe that clearly destructive teachings are occurring and simply opening your mouth to disagree gets you excommunicated. Then there is division, even within that group, even if you keep your mouth shut and just suffer it.
Yes, the groups with "closed communion" have a theological problem unless they somehow are truly convinced that no one else is saved and in a good standing before God. But that is seldom the case. But that is not an argument for one church in a city. It actually is an argument for at least two. One that holds exclusivism, and one that is open and cannot in good conscience help propagate that exclusivist position as the image of God. Add one more truly problem issue that is held by another group and you have at least three.
No, it is not ideal. But if you move to a small community with two assemblies, one somewhat closed and the other more open, how do you choose? If they are both open, how to you chose? If both closed? The point is that even if you just stay home, you are choosing between them (or against them both) and it is "of your choice." You must choose. But in a way that is not simply divisive.
Pretty tall order.
It seems to me that the more important thing for any of us is not figuring out what way is
the way, but becoming those who
can meet with virtually anyone, even though we regularly meet with those who we generally identify as similar to ourselves. It is not about making the group right, but making us righteous in how we deal with any group.
In other words, it is less about the group and more about ourselves.
And I realize that this sort of argues against discussing the errors of any group, including the LRC. There are still contexts in which discussion of differences should occur, and especially where those differences are harmful to the spiritual and psychological well-being of their members.