Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Okay, it is absolutely clear now that Canfield is NOT defending the PARTICULAR iteration of "ground of locality" as PRACTICED in the LC (the subject of much debate here - i.e. a basis for meeting separately from other believers).
It is clear that he is speaking as an individual addressing the state of sectarian Christianity.
Turning that into a larger point, he isn't so much protecting the "ground of locality" as he is rejecting groups that carve out any other "ground" apart from oneness. His point, if you read it without the skeptical-of-Lee glasses is that there should not be a "ground" to meet other than our shared salvation.... and geography.
|
I'm not sure if it's "absolutely clear" or not but what is clear is that David has taken a dogmatic position which ties a Christians spiritual growth to the adoption and practice of his particular ecclesiology. This is an unfortunate and I might add arrogant stance. As one poster has indicated he should tone down his rhetoric and demonstrate to us in practical terms the working out of his position in the here and now. We know the LC is a complete flop at implementing their own doctrine of the church so let's see what Canfield can do? Where is it?