Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Let's talk about logical errors shall we?
Why is it that no denominational names and only city names can be found in reference to churches in the Bible?
|
Do you really understand logical errors? You have just presented us with a false dichotomy.
The dichotomy is false for two reasons. First, there are not "only city names" found in reference to churches, so your second option is invalid. And it is invalid because there are more than two options.
Want to rethink your understanding of logical errors?
There are at least three different references made — regions, cities, and houses (by the name of the owner of the house). And there is nothing that makes these
names for the churches rather than designations of where it is that the particular Christians (which are the church — whether universal or local) are that are mentioned or written to. And whether it is or is not a name, it is clearly a description of what Christians are being referred to.
But there is nothing insisting that it is a name. That is an overlay that Nee and Lee insisted upon without anything more than a declaration that it is simply so. But it is not simply so. That is a misrepresentation of the available information.
Could it actually be true? It is possible. But it is also possible that it is simply a description (not a prescription). But even if it is a prescription, it will always be a description. But the fact that it is always a description does not in any way comment on whether it is or is not a prescription. So just saying the name of a city, region, or house does not prescribe anything. At least not without something decreeing it to be the way to address or name a church.
And while I can accept that there could be a truth that is not clearly prescribed, I would need to be assured that there is nothing that stands in opposition before I at least remain neutral on the subject. But there is the church in a house." It is referring to a church without mentioning a city. And it is within a letter that has been labeled as to a city, so if this house is within that city, then there is a serious question as to whether that is being referenced as a church (the church) different from the ones otherwise reading the letter. And if it is in a different city, why wasn't the city named rather than the house?
And this is not the only case. There are at least 2 or 3.
They stand in opposition to the notion that churches are designated by city. And you cannot invoke the city-church rule to dismiss them as meaning something else. That would be to use the unproved rule to dismiss evidence that it is not a valid rule. Circular reasoning. Begging the Question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Why does the Bible frequently use the term "the church" and not "your church".
. . . .
The concept of "my church" and "your church" is not in the Bible.
|
You are right. But if the underlying meaning of "church" is assembly, then the one I meet with is "mine" in a loose sense of the word. We use the word loosely in this day and age to mean something besides "something that belongs to me." We also use it to identify with something. "My church" simply means the one with which I meet. If not finding that phrase in the Bible makes that particular meaning bad or wrong, then it also does not mention so many other things. Lack of mention of something that is of no moral or spiritual consequence does not mean it is precluded.
Now I would agree that if someone says that with the thought of "my church, the one that is right while yours is wrong" then there is a problem with the term.
And I know a lot of people who say things like that. And I know some that would never say "my church" but they still refer to the one that they are meeting with while thinking exactly that.
Whether someone says "the church" or "my church" is neutral in itself. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical. It is in the intents of the heart saying it that it takes on any additional characterization.