Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - Regarding the Ground of Locality

12-14-2011, 08:03 AM

It seems to me there are two fundamental flaws to this teaching.

First, “one administration” is a teaching that exhibits extreme hubris. At the time of the early church it would be reasonable to cede authority to Peter (who was given the “keys to the kingdom”) and to Paul (who Peter deferred to). So the early church did have apostles that could appoint elders, but they didn’t have the New Testament. Today we don’t have Peter and Paul but we do have the New Testament. It seems clear to me that the “prerequisite” for a church is not to embrace the “one administration” but to embrace the authority of the New Testament. The New Testament clearly defines the criteria for elders and other church leaders.

Second, the “dirt”, or teaching of the ground. Again, the idea that someone could walk into a city today where Christians are already meeting and “take the ground” is arrogance that has crossed the border into delusional. Instead, it seems to me that the ground is clearly the Lord’s word in the NT that “they all may be one”. As long as a Christian gathering embraces the idea and practice in both word and deed, of being one with all genuine believers in the city, then to my mind they are “standing on the ground of the church”.

That said, many congregations are meetings of genuine believers but do not come up to this standard. They make excuses for why the NT is not the authority, why what it teaches is not relevant to their situation. Also, relatively few congregations embrace the oneness of all believers in deed. That is not to say that there are not a large number of Christians and their gatherings that do, but that the majority of all Christian gatherings are set and settled and do not actively seek to be one with anyone outside of their group. However from my personal experience the worst offender that I have met is the Local church affiliated with WL and WN. I was taught that if I took the Lord’s table at any other Christian gathering I would get sick. I was also taught that being a member of another denomination was not evidence that I was saved and that to be safe I needed to be baptized again. I think that these two teachings are clearly evidence of the arrogance and hubris in the Local Churches.

12-14-2011, 08:03 AM	#181
Guest 1 Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield It seems to me there are two fundamental flaws to this teaching. First, “one administration” is a teaching that exhibits extreme hubris. At the time of the early church it would be reasonable to cede authority to Peter (who was given the “keys to the kingdom”) and to Paul (who Peter deferred to). So the early church did have apostles that could appoint elders, but they didn’t have the New Testament. Today we don’t have Peter and Paul but we do have the New Testament. It seems clear to me that the “prerequisite” for a church is not to embrace the “one administration” but to embrace the authority of the New Testament. The New Testament clearly defines the criteria for elders and other church leaders. Second, the “dirt”, or teaching of the ground. Again, the idea that someone could walk into a city today where Christians are already meeting and “take the ground” is arrogance that has crossed the border into delusional. Instead, it seems to me that the ground is clearly the Lord’s word in the NT that “they all may be one”. As long as a Christian gathering embraces the idea and practice in both word and deed, of being one with all genuine believers in the city, then to my mind they are “standing on the ground of the church”. That said, many congregations are meetings of genuine believers but do not come up to this standard. They make excuses for why the NT is not the authority, why what it teaches is not relevant to their situation. Also, relatively few congregations embrace the oneness of all believers in deed. That is not to say that there are not a large number of Christians and their gatherings that do, but that the majority of all Christian gatherings are set and settled and do not actively seek to be one with anyone outside of their group. However from my personal experience the worst offender that I have met is the Local church affiliated with WL and WN. I was taught that if I took the Lord’s table at any other Christian gathering I would get sick. I was also taught that being a member of another denomination was not evidence that I was saved and that to be safe I needed to be baptized again. I think that these two teachings are clearly evidence of the arrogance and hubris in the Local Churches.