Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Hi ZNP,
As this discussion unfolded it went deeper into the weeds. Now that you are in the weeds you beg for a simple definition of the church as if it had not already been provided.
The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period.
|
This thread has been consistent from the first post. What is the New Testament teaching.
You and Evangelical have claimed that the city is a key component of the definition. Allegorically I agree, but no one, including you, has provided a black and white definition from the NT that says this. And that, to me is very interesting. How could something so important, as portrayed by you, Evangelical and Witness Lee, be left to an inferred teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
The believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son and though that is deeply profound, yet it is simple. That they may be one even Father as you and I are one. What visible testimony speaks to this spiritual reality? One church, one city, of which every believer is a member of.
Yet, because you do not accept the simple and straightforward answer, and you seemed intent on justifying divisions/denominations, you kept introducing various scenarios, and "what about this and that?", and Evangelical gave as thorough an explanation as is available to your many what-if scenarios.
|
Why do you say I don't accept this truth that the believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son. Everything that I have spoken has affirmed this.
One church, one city of which every believer is a member of. I have no issue with this. My issue is with "one administration appointed by Witness Lee". I am not the one who has claimed that all the believers in a city are not in the church, that has been the sole domain of Evangelical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
The absurdity peaked when a city of a million people could, under your definition, have 500K churches of two people each. That makes no sense but it is the logical conclusion of your proposal.
|
My proposal is that according to the NT, according to Jesus word in Matthew 16 and 18, and according to Paul's word in Ephesians the focus of the NT is not on "the true church" as described by Witness Lee but not defined. Rather it is on "the true Jesus".
The first mention of church is when Peter had the revelation of Jesus as the Christ. This is the purpose of the Church, this is when the church is truly revealed, when we have the revelation of Jesus.
Neither you nor Evangelical provided any other valid definition from the NT. You have not defined "church" from the NT other than the meaning of the word -- gathering of the called out ones.
I asked what the minimum number of members could be for a church based on the NT -- no valid answer other than the verse 2-3 from Jesus.
I asked what requirements a gathering of the believers would have to meet to be a church. Again, no valid reason to reject a group as small as 2-3.
I asked what would you call this fellowship of 2-3 that meets the standard of Matt 18 and the 7 ones in Ephesians. No other valid name other than a gathering of the called out ones.
How is it that something so simple as you say, so central to the NT, so key, so important, and you can't even answer the most basic question -- what is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
If its complex it is because you have made it so. It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.
Drake
|
I am asking the simplest and most basic question. What does the NT say that a church is?
If that is making things complex for you then that comes across as someone handling the word deceitfully. How can you tell me that giving a NT definition of a church is my making this "complex" or leading this "into the weeds".
This is hermeneutics 101.