[Gubei]

Igzy,

I still need to clarify my position to you. Despite your negation, I believe you are thinking of me as one of LSM-type advocate of the truth.

1. Actually, we are envisioning the same practice of church life in mind.

Did you notice that? Your model is what I have thougt in mind.

You wrote
"My model is to meet with believers and receive all Christian believers and groups. Oneness is shown by our willingness to receive others and to acknowledge that the Lord may be working in ways better than our own in a group meeting just a few miles away. In other words, the attitude of oneness is one of receiving, love, graciousness and humility--esteeming others as better than ourselves."

I could not agree with you more on this.

2. what I mean by the "ground of locality"

As opposed to somepeople who abuse the truth, the ground of locality should be used to unify Christians. Please look at the below two examples in which an elder is giving teaching to a new comer.

Elder A : Brother Tom, welcome to the house of God. We are God's unique expression in this city. We are following the truth of the ground of locality which is in the Bible. As you may notice, there are a lot of Christains in this city who have been deviated from this crucial truth in the Bible. They are wrong. It is God's will for you to come to our meeting.

Elder B : Brother Tom, welcome to the house of God. According to the Bible, all the saints in a city was called the church in that city. This truth is referred to as the ground of locality. As you know, there are a lot of saints in this city. And we love them as our brothers and sisters. We should accept them according to the truth in the Bible.

Igzy, I basically believe the ground of locality means more accepting other brothers and sisters without condition than administratoin. In other words, despite the word "locality", the gound of locality means more universality than locality. If God is omnipresent (or out of the limitation of time and space), locality means little to Him.

3. the ground of locality has two phase

You wrote
“If the Lord wanted us to practice the local ground, since it is a practical matter he would have given us the practical tools to do so. A primary issue with the city church model is knowing who to follow. Since you cannot give me a way of determining who the elders actually are, the model can't even get out of the gate, and I have to conclude it is actually impractical and therefore superfluous.”


Igzy, you are thinking that the ground of locality means one unitary eldership in a city. But, when I use the term the ground of locality (or one city – one church), I have in mind the situation that every saint accept others in that city (as described by your wonderful expressions). Of course, the next phase – one unitary eldership in that city - is not unimportant. As we know, according to the Bible, in the early churches, there were the situation in which even this second phase – one unitary eldership in a city – was rightly conducted. However, I already made concession on this matter. Due to human nature and the big size of modern city, practically, it is very difficult to have one unitary eldership in a city in this 21 century, if not impossible. So, I even suggested that the ground of locality is more for exposing human nature in its functioning.

Furthermore, even as WL admitted, the local church is not directly related with the second coming of our Lord. Overcomers, who will be from any Christian groups, is related with the long-awaited event among Christains. In that sense, one unitary eldership (or administration) seems to me not to be so critical at least in terms of our Lord's second coming.

You can be a good American even though you are not in line with the administrative policy of American government. Americans are not for administratoin, but administration is for Americans.
As you know, the problem with LSM-model is that they force saints to follow administration.

But, I think you have gone too far with the word “superfluous.” Just as the Mosaic Law is not superfluous, “one unitary eldership is a city” is not superfluous. That is a truth originally revealed in the Bible. What’s impossible to man is possible to God. Who knows one day the church in Toronto goes back to this original situation by the work of the Spirit. Let’s not be in such haste in giving up the truth, at least for the time God might make them one.


4. Not every descriptive in the Bible is without prescriptive authority


You wrote
“The law gives us specific and direct commandments. There is no commandment to practice the local ground, so your point does not work here.”

As some theologians, including WN and WL, claim, we should not take only the prescriptive portion in the Bible as prescriptive. We also should take some descriptive portion in the Bible as prescriptive according to our interpretation. Some times, we should not take prescriptive portion in the Bible as prescriptive. We do not pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands when those commit sins.

5. “Necessarily” means “without counterexamples”, but there are some.


You wrote.
“Differences on interpreting the Trinity do not necessarily lead to contention. Differences on interpreting the local ground necessarily do lead to contention. Practicing it requires everyone agree on exactly what it means and how it is carried out. This will never happen, thus trying to force it is a distraction and even a detriment to the Lords' work of saving people. Let's get back to what the Lord commanded us to do.”

Yes, differences on interpreting the Trinity do not necessarily lead to contention. But it leads to contention really so frequently and so many times. That’s what I said.
Differences on interpreting the local ground necessarily do lead to contention? I already said that “not necessarily.” How can you deal with some counterexamples in which scattered groups gather together giving up their former position?

6. We are on the same page on the fact that denominations are wrong.

You wrote
“I'm a lot more worried about a group claiming to be the one true church in the city than I am about signs. Signs are bad if they confuse or divide, but those that simply identify are not a problem. Denominations are losing membership. The community church movement is skyrocketing. Most CC's simply use signs and names to identify. I see the trend going in the right direction.”

Despite your negation, at least to me, you seem to allude that I’m in for LSM’s position of the ground of locality by saying that “I'm a lot more worried about a group claiming to be the one true church in the city than I am about signs.” As I already made it clear, the one true church in a city includes ALL THE SAINTS in that city. And you seem to deny denominations as I do. It’s good. About community church, I do not have much knowledge.

7. The church in Chee Foo includes ALL THE SAINTS in that city

You wrote
“Implicit in your remedy is the assumption that you are right and others are wrong. This is precisely the problem that is built into the LC model. You cannot "take the ground" without assuming others are wrong. The LC model even says that other groups which meet on the ground (like the other three in Cheefoo that Hope talked about) are wrong. Four community churches in a city will fellowship, meet and pray with each other freely. Four "local churches" in a city will not. They will at best pretend the others don't exist. Usually one or all will condemn the others. Hope can tell you about how this occurs in Raleigh.”

Once again you seem to allude that I am for LC model by saying the example of Chee Foo. But I already replied to Hope by saying the four so called local churches in Chee Foo are WRONG. If four community churches fellowship each other, it’s really good! The only concern I have about them is that why they use the word “community” in front of “church.”

By the way, one question. Do you think you are right and I am wrong in the matter of ground of locality? I expect yes. That’s why you and I exchange this long postings each other. Then, why can some not think others are wrong?

8. A more difficult issue - apostleship

You wrote
“Appealing to apostleship is just kicking the can down the road. Like elders, there is no way for us to determine who the real modern apostles are. It all comes down to opinion, and as we know, if you insist on your opinion you create contention. This is exactly what has happened when some insist Witness Lee was a apostle. Appealing to apostleship just creates more problems.”

As I told you in my previous post, let’s talk about this later. BTW, you do not seem to look up my postings in the Berean forum. I know that is not convenient to you. Yesterday (in China time), I found my writings about this matter in doc format, which was written 1 and half year ago in my Laptop. Let’s fellowship later.

BTW, please give me your definition of apostle in one or two sentences. That will be helpful for our later discussion. I had a really hard time in discussing this issue with a brother who cannot deal with what comes by the simple difference of definition.

9. Tronto?

You wrote
“So, again, please tell me. Who are the elders of the church in Toronto? The LSM-following elders or the CB-following elders, or someone else? And how do you know? I need to know who to meet with when I visit there. This was the question I asked you to answer.”

You are asking too much to me who has never been to Toronto.  I’m so sad to see the situation. Why should I, who were born in a really small country in Asia and now living in China for some reason, confirm who are elders and who are not in Toronto which is really far away from my place? But if you insist I will after posting the aforementioned my doc file in this thread.

BTW, can you tell me where you are living now? That will be helpful for me to better understand you.

Let’s keep in touch.

Gubei