Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
The ground of locality, prohibits a house church,
|
Well, if the ground of locality prohibits a house church then it can't be biblical because the NT allows a house church. "House church" doesn't mean it's meeting on the ground of the house, it mean its meeting in a house.
Quote:
|
The divided ones (denominations) are pretending they are not divided, they are "one body".
|
You are are also assuming as part of your argument that denominations are divisive. You haven't proven this either. You haven't proven that the Bible prohibits a church having a name. You haven't defined the term divisive.
Here's the problem with this discussion,
Evangelical. You are assuming true what you have not demonstrated in good faith. The ground of locality teaching is what is in question here, and you keep arguing for it by assuming its true. That's circular reasoning, and it's invalid.
You are proceeding as if everyone is supposed to agree with your definitions of everything, as if you are the only one who sees the light and everyone else is just stupid. Judging from what I've seen, you are not smart enough for that to be true. So take the "I'm the authority" attitude down a notch and show some humility. Because the Bible talks a lot more about humility than being on the "proper ground," and if you are not up to the former you darn sure shouldn't be lecturing anyone about the latter.
As I said, it's highly unlikely that you are correct on this teaching and 99.99% of other evangelical Christians, living now and down through history, are and have been wrong about it. It's pretty brazen to just come along and start making declarations of what you think the Bible really says without creating a very good case AND approaching others with a bit of humility, considering the understandable likeliness that they might disagree with you.
You've (and Nee and the rest) have done neither. There are legitimate and very good questions and exceptions about the "ground of locality" teaching. They are being put forth here. You are brushing them aside. You need to address those honestly and stop making this circular argument where you assume the truth of what you are trying to prove.
The Bible mentions city churches. It also mentions house churches. Yet you say house churches are invalid. Now, what is a thinking person who hasn't turned his freedom of thought over to Nee and Lee to think about this? He probably is going to expect you to make a very good case to explain the discrepancies. But you haven't done that. Neither have you explained how denominations are categorically divisive. You just keep saying they are as if if you say it enough people will give into it. That's not an explanation.
Here's the thing. Nee is not the authority here. Neither is his book "The Normal Christian Church Life." Go back to the pure word of the Bible and make your argument from it, not from what he superimposed on it.
Look at the fruit of the "local ground" teaching. Look how its ultimate result has been either (1) groups fighting over who is the real church in the city or (2) an entrenched, ossified group of leaders ruling over all the Christians in the city with no hope of recovery. It doesn't work. Human nature will eventually find a way to muck up any legalistic system. That is why we need to walk by the Spirit and have the freedom to follow Him, and that's why you need to honor that in others and stop pretending you have the lowdown on church. You don't. None of us do. It's a mystery. That's what the Bible says.
God needs a way for his seekers to go on, and the only way is to allow them to gather in churches as they feel led by him, without the oppression of some group insisting that it alone is the true church in the city while beating everyone else over the head claiming they are divisive.