Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I may be wrong, but it seemed to me from the greetings in chapter 16, that Paul was acknowledging the simultaneous existence of multiple ekklesia/churches in one urban area. There was the church in Rome, to which the letter was addressed and also the church that met in so-and-so's house. No indication that they were the same thing; on the contrary, the wording indicates distinction. Not a different geographical location, just the church meeting in someone's house.
I don't recall Nee or Lee covering this point? Funny how carefully they looked for anything to support their formulations, then with conflicting points they either waved them away or studiously avoided them. Seems to me like they avoided the idea multiple ekklesia in Rome.
At least Paul didn't call them "District 2" and "Meeting Hall #3". He just called it what it was. The church that met in so-and-so's house.
|
Actually, I think Nee tried to in Further Talks. But he mostly declared that it could not mean that because of the ground of locality rule. The rule is raised to dismiss the evidence that the rule could be wrong. The ultimate begging of the question.
As for whether the church in Rome was something different from the house church mentioned, that is debatable on several levels. It could be that the reference to the chruch in Rome is a generic greeting to all the Christians there, but the fact that the letter was delivered to certain persons gave Paul cause to request that they specifically say something to some of the others for him.
In one sense the church is not limited by assemblies. In another the assembly is the church. But if you are not concerned with the distinction, then it isn't even a point of equivocation. It is only for those who want to make the two instances into one and declare that they own the patent to the correct "church" that it is suddenly important.