Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Let's talk about what's "obvious." Here are the first five verses of Romans 16. Paul is greeting the saints in Rome. 1. I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2. that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. 3. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4. who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; 5. also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia.
If the church in Rome is the only legitimate church in that city, then Paul is already addressing the church in Rome when he starts greeting the saints. So it makes no sense that the church mentioned in verse 5, which meets in Prisca and Aquilla's house, is the city church.
Imagine you were greeting a club. You wouldn't greet some of the individuals in the club, then greet the club which meets on the corner, then continue to greet the club individuals, all the time expecting listeners to know the club on the corner includes everyone you've mentioned. In fact, that manner of address implies just the opposite--that the club on the corner is in some way different.
One explanation offered is that "church" in verse five simply means "assembly" in a general way, like group. But this is a huge presumption. There is no reason to suggest that the word church here doesn't have the full meaning of church as used in other places in the NT.
So, if patterns are your thing, it seems to me that the pattern here is that church can be used legitimately to describe a city church (v. 1) or a house church (v. 5), as Paul easily moves from one usage to the other, with no apparent sense of a need for explanation of the dual usage.
Suggesting that the church in the house here equals the church in the city seems very forced. In fact, one likely would not even think such a thing unless he or she were predisposed that city churches were the only legit churches, and so needed to shoehorn verse five into that belief.
So what's "obvious?" |
This statement is simply biased logic by you Igzy. You oppose one church in a city and so you read it this way and present it to us in a way that sounds authoritative. There is no mention of “The church that is at Rome” and also “the church that is their house” in this epistle. If you can show this to me than I will acknowledge that you have a solid point.
Firstly Paul doesn’t start out greeting the saints in Rome in chapter 16. He starts out commending a sister from another church( which by the way is another dreaded local church……the church which is at Cencrea…a fact that you failed to mention in your biased presentation.) Then He specifically points out Prisca and Aquilla who were Paul’s fellow workers and who even risked their lives for him. Nothing wrong with that special greeting……they had a special place in Paul’s heart because of his long time association with them. And these dear ones were so precious that even the churches of the gentiles were thankful for them.
And this precious couple in the Lord even had the saints gathering in their house. How wonderful……so….greet the church….or….assembly that is in their house.
Your argument is simply a reasoned statement by someone who wants the various divisions in the body of Christ to be a justifiable thing.