Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
So then, in brief
1. Yes, I think it is a valid and Biblically sound exercise to look for the "ground of the church"
2. Yes, I agree that such a critical concept must have a clear word in the NT.
|
I think that these two statements need more than "think" and "agree" to make them worthy of consideration to think about whether we should consider a "ground."
Why is there a valid "biblical" reason to do this?
How does the purchase of the land that the Temple was built on create a need for a ground now?
Where is "ground" mentioned in the NT?
Is it ever mentioned in conjunction with the church?
If it is essentially missing from the NT, how does it rise to a "critical concept" that needs a "clear word"?
Why do we need a clear word when scripture provides none?
I honestly believe that we have to get over this hurdle before we wander into the realm of trying to answer the question of "what is the ground of the church." If there is no evidence that there is a ground or that it is important, then how can it be a critical concept in need of a clear word?