Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
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.
|
In the New Testament, the singular word "church" is always used when referring to the "church in the city.."
There is no verse in the New Testament that says "churches in the city.."
It always says church, not churches. This proves that individual house meetings within the city are not churches.
The plural, churches, is used in reference to regions. This proves that a church is not greater than a city. There is no such thing as a "church of such and such region".
Christ Himself in Revelation refers to each church on a city basis, not regional or household basis.
It is logical or rational to appeal to the majority evidence and conclude "this is most likely thus".
It is irrational to appeal to minor aberrations to the rule as solid evidence to the majority.