[Gubei]

Dear my brother, Igzy,

I want to clarify once again as follows. (I used your name, Igzy, and you/he interchangeably.)

1.What Igzy really said in his previous posts
Igzy wrote.

"Your whole argument that I'm prescribing something restrictive is very weak. You keep screaming to be fair, but the fact is you are wrong. I'm not prescribing anything other than being silent where the Bible is silent."

The Bible is full of vivid picture of describing the ground of locality. That's why I am not silent on that. BTW Was Igzy really silent? Below is his writings about rejecting the ground of locality and presenting his own model.

“1.The Lord never taught the local ground.
2.The apostles never taught the local ground.
3.The early church fathers never taught the local ground.
Why should we teach it?”

"Eldership is confirmed, therefore, by recognition by followers. I.e. People follow the leader(s) because they are persuaded in their own minds that the Lord wants them to follow those leaders. So although a leader may be the official leader of a church, no one is compelled to meet with that church. They are free to meet where the Lord leads."

“The Bible indicates that the official leader(s) is/are appointed by the Lord. This appointment is recognized by consensus, which the Bible also indicates. If one doesn't agree with the consensus, one is free to meet elsewhere. (Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.) This is my model.”

“Allowing free movement actually prevents division rather than encourages it. For example, suppose some saints feel their leadership is no longer following the Lord. If they feel compelled to stay by a locality principle or some such they are expected to squelch their impulse. In some cases this may be good, but there are bound to be cases where the Lord is indeed moving them to make a change. If they are not free, they must eventually make a confrontation and ugly things are bound to happen.

On the other hand, if they are free to leave, then they can go in peace. Neither side has to loudly condemn the other because of the "each being fully persuaded in their own mind" principle. They simple need to be free to follow there consciences.”

“Freely moving is not the same thing as being divisive. Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude. For example, I may leave a church to move to another one in a divisive way, or in a pure way, it all depends on my heart.”

Igzy, you not only denied the ground of locality, but also gave us your model with detailed processes and procedures. Even though I’m not an English native speaker, this is obviously what is meant by the English word “prescription.”

2. What does “prescription” mean?
Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2000) defined “prescribe” as follows. According to this authoritative American dictionary, I’m telling that you gave us your prescription.
SEE: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/check

3. You seem to misunderstand the ground of locality.
You wrote.

“The ground of locality doctrine is not a teaching that allows an inch of disagreement on its meaning because the teaching says that those who don't agree with it are divisive.”

Who said this? Divisive ones are not those who are against the ground of locality. Simply speaking, I do not think you are divisive, even though you are against the ground of locality. On the contrary, I already, several times, said that some “LCers” are divisive by wrongly using the ground of locality. What makes one divisive is not whether he is for or against the ground of locality. But most of divisive ones tend to be against this truth.

BTW, it is obvious that you are making the mistake of not distinguishing between phase 1 and phase 2 in the ground of locality. The ground of locality is composed of two phases. Phase 1 is about accepting other Christians unconditionally. Phase 2 is about seeking after one-set of elders in a city. Phase 1 is essential in our Christian life to supply each other with the richness of Christ. However, Phase 2 is not essential. This can be explained by citing the matter of head covering of sisters. The head covering is prescribed in the Bible, but not essential in our Christian life. That's why I can tolerate any sisters who do not cover their head in church meetings. Then I do NOT INSIST that practice. However, if any chance for me to clarify my position would be given to me, I will say the head covering is right according to the Bible.

Igzy adheres to only the phase 2, which is a subset of the ground of locality. Furthermore, he defined the ground of locality as INSISTING PHASE 2. So, whenever he mentions the ground of locality, actually he means the INSISTING PAHASE 2, or INSISTING ONE-SET OF ELDERS IN A CITY. I several times pointed out his mistake of misrepresenting the ground of locality by his own, arbitrary definition of the ground of locality, but he rejected to correct his mistake. And then, he cited LSM's wrong applications of the ground of locality in order to vindicate his prescription despite the fact that I several times pointed out LSM's wrong applications are another story. Think about this. Head covering of sisters and INSISTING head covering of sisters are very different.

The phase 2 of the ground of locality, or one-set of elders in a city cannot be reached without a full operation of phase 1. As contrary to Igzy's understanding, I claimed that one-set of elders in a city should be sought after by being open to other Christians, not by INSISTING. I took the example of the church in NYC. Obviously, the local church there (if my memory is correct, one meeting hall is in Manhattan, and the other is in Flushing), which was initiated by WL's ministry, was not the first Christian ground in NYC. I do not oppose any initiating of the practice of the ground of locality in any city. However, after establishing a group of Christian on the ground of locality with one-set of elders, they should seek after being open to other Christians in that city. And they should admit that the one-set of elders are not representing the whole Christian body in that city. Of course, their effort to unify all the Christians in that city under one-set of elders could turn out to be a failure. If that's the case, there is no way except continuing prayers. Think about this. You can try to persuade sisters into taking head coverings, but if the sisters reject your proposal, there is no way. But one-set of elders in a city or head covering of sisters are not essential in our Christian life. You do not need to condemn them. As you know, some so called "LCers" made mistakes in this regard. They condemn other Christians too much with such expression as "concubines", "illegal building-up of church." Those actions, naturally, invited further conflicts and divisions among Christians.

BUT I condemn the denominations which have other names such as Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc. According to the divine nomenclature of church, there is no other example in the Bible than naming it with the expression of "The church in XX." Furthermore, Paul strictly rebuked Corinthians for that wrong action. I do not believe that "the denominations are only for the identification."

4. Logic
You wrote.

"There's nothing wrong with logic. You can't type a clear sentence without it. You can't find your way to the meeting hall without it. You can't interpret the Bible without it. WL himself often said, "That's not logical."

I did not say we should not use logic. I want to be as logical as possible. Do not get me wrong. I said we should use the biblical verses to support any model before we use our logic. Think about this. The truth of Trinity is not logical. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses claims that Trinity is wrong. But Trinity is there beyond our human logic or understanding. Sola Scriptura, the great declaration of the Reformers is such that our Christians beliefs should be based on the Bible itself before human traditions, pre-conceptions, or logic.

5. Biblical ground
The shortcoming of Igzy's model is that there is NO scriptural basis. I asked him to give us any verses which support his model. He gave us

“Wrong. I am not prescribing anything that restricts anything, except that you let people decide for themselves where they meet. And that is prescribed by the principle of freedom in Christ, which is solidly Biblical.”

But, he was not correct in quoting the exact verse in the Bible ("freedom in Christ" should be "freedom that we have in Christ Jesus" according to Gal 2:4), and the verse is about the Mosaic Law. I do not believe we can extrapolate that much. Furthermore, as contrary to his assertion, the verse is not prescriptive. So, it is also very obvious that he is drawing a prescriptive principle for practice from a descriptive verse in the Bible, the action which he has opposed so severely when I did with the ground of locality.

Igzy wrote.

“The point is that non-prescriptive patterns in the Bible do not provide enough to enforce doctrine which restrict freedom. The fact is the Bible does not give us enough information about locality for it to be practically practiced. It just doesn't. That was God's choice not mine. This is why you can't answer practical questions about how very real problems are solved.”

Igzy once again try to attack the ground of locality by saying the Bible does not give us enough information. But, we have a lot of descriptive verses which support the prescriptive principle of the ground of locality. In addition, he did not give us "enough information" for his model (free movement of saints).

Igzy wrote.

“No, if you want to put forth locality in the same manner--a vague, somewhat mysterious principle, then fine. Then you'd be comparing apples to apples. But the difference between Trinity and locality is that locality by its very nature is extremely practical. It cannot be practiced unless everyone agrees on exactly what it means. With the Trinity we can disagree a lot on the meaning and still fellowship. LCers believe the Son is the Father; non-LCers don't. Yet they can still fellowship. But if you believe locality means the city and I believe it means the burrough then we've got a very practical problem which is insurmountable.”

I already answered this question. The ground of locality can be practiced even without universal agreement among Christians in a city. We do not need to have "unanimous voting for one-set of elders." Anyone who is for this truth can practice this truth. And they can fellowship with other Christians in that city. Once again, Igzy's understanding of the ground of locality is such that those who follow this truth necessarily reject other Christians. This is his assumption, not the fact.

Gubei