I want to take on one more thing today, because this is the opus of Canfield's case for the Ground of Locality.
If we wish to deny the ground of oneness in locality, we must ask ourselves, what other New Testament basis can we find for establishing churches? When we consider this matter quietly and honestly before the Lord, we must admit that there is none.
Canfield is saying that the New Testament shows us no other basis for establishing a practical church other than on the ground of locality.
Is this true? No, it is not. At least it is not plain that it is true. The Bible gives four cases of house or home churches. Canfield jumps through the usual hoops to "prove" the house churches really are just the city churches. But his case, while interesting, is not definitive.
In other words, there is reasonable cause to believe that practical churches based on something smaller that locality are represented in the Bible in multiple cases. This being the case, it is reasonable to give that view the benefit of the doubt. Or, said another way, it is unreasonable to insist that all practical churches must be based on the ground of locality.
In other words, given the uncertainty of the claim that house churches equal city churches, any insistence on the Ground of Locality as the sole basis for establishing churches violates the principle of generality toward other believers as put forth in Romans 14.
Canfield's and the LC's argument that house churches equal city churches is far from airtight. It contains several leaks. Here's one of the biggest.
Paul in Romans addresses his letter to the believers in Rome, not the church. At the end of the book he commences with personal greetings, saluting this person and that. It's a touching sequence because it shows how well-acquainted and tender-hearted Paul was toward the believers he ministered to. He saw them as individuals as well as a group.
After greeting Phoebe he greets Priscilla and Aquila, and mentions the church that is at their house. It is not clear from the text whether Paul is greeting that church or continuing his thanks to the churches of the Gentiles, but in either case he mentions it.
But a common-sense reading of this suggests intuitively that the church in P&A's house is in addition to or a partial overlap of the people he is greeting, or a subset of the people he has written this letter to. If the church in question included all the people he was greeting by name, wouldn't he call it the "rest of the church" or "the whole church" or withhold his general greeting until the very end and make it clear that when he mentioned church he was talking about everyone, not just those in P&A's house. Would every reader of this letter be aware that the entire church in Rome could fit in P&A's house? Rome was big city. Did P&A own a mansion? Would everyone know this?
The point is there are reasons to lean either side of the argument. But nothing is definitive. Therefore, it is unreasonable to pretend it is definitive and take the position that churches based on grounds smaller than the city are not true churches. It is as unreasonable as insisting the Earth is only 8000 years old. However, it is much more damaging.
Canfield makes an interesting concession. He says:
[W]e should note that even if these churches did meet on a different ground, i.e., on the ground of a home rather than on the ground of locality, then at most it provides a scriptural basis for a house church, and one in which the believers are clearly in a close fellowship with all of the other believers in their city and with the Lord’s servants.
So Canfield is conceding that some valid churches may have met on the ground of houses, not the city. However, he seems to thinks that now we can only have either house churches or city churches, but nothing in between. I think this strict principle is missing the point. Further his insistence on "close fellowship" (whatever that means) "with all of the other believers in their city" is clearly an unbiblical requirement. Canfield isn't even in close fellowship with all the other believers in his city, so why he is asking for something he isn't even fulfilling himself?
Finally, let me address this statement:
The Bible never once speaks of “the churches” in a given city, nor does it ever say to believers in the same locality, “greet the church in this one’s home, and also greet the church in that one’s home.” On this basis alone it is clear that these examples provide no basis for claiming that a church in the home of some saints today can be different from the church in their locality.
The fact that there is only one mention of a house church in each city does not make clear that the house church was the city church. Canfield is reaching for affirmation that is not there.
The bottom line, however, is this: Scholars and teachers have studied this issue for years and almost none side with Canfield. That alone should show Canfield that it is unreasonable and sectarian of him to refuse to acknowledge that indeed practical churches based on something other than locality may be valid. And if they may be valid it is incumbent upon us in the principle of Romans 14 to consider that they are valid, and to treat them as such.
And stop writing books that say otherwise.