Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
It seems to me that you are re-branding. When the Bible speaks of multiple ekklesia in one area, you call them "meetings". But when you see multiple meetings that you don't like (because they aren't "affiliated with" [read: subservient to) the lone ministry of the age, so-called) you call them "churches", and say there's only one, allowed. So that is a division.
When your denomination has multiple gatherings, assemblies, services, you call them "meetings", as in "College meeting" or "Prayer meeting at sister Smith's house". But the Bible called them ekklesia. Both NT and OT (LXX).
|
hi aron,
I understand you cannot discern the distinction between the reasons and causes for divisions/denominations vs. the physical distance between multiple meeting halls of believers in the same city standing on the ground of oneness.
No amount of explanation has convinced you. And though I disagree with your views on this point you have your reasons for holding them based on events that shaped your viewpoint.
My experience was different from yours even though I also lived through the same era and events you did. I also had some firsthand experience in your patch. I have a guiding vision where the biblical facts align perfectly with the leading of the Spirit concerning the Church and the churches. Some have argued that the leaders were/are imperfect, or the execution was flawed, or awful things happened and therefore the whole is to be rejected. I will not argue with any of those citations except what should be done about it. I am reminded that none of us are without sin, faults, and shortcomings, and yet God still viewed the church in Corinth with all its sin, faults, and strife as the church of God in Corinth. His view is what matters to me the most.
I understand that is a moot point for you.
Drake