Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese
I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.
What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?
|
Let me put it this way. What if you were the apostle Paul and did that, and had no connection to the Church in Jerusalem where Peter, James and John were? Does that represent oneness or not? What if Paul then called his church the "Pauline Church" - is that oneness? People who did not like Peter and James's teaches could attend the Pauline Church if they wanted to, as it suited their preference.
What if you lived in the time of the apostle Paul, and you started a church according to his pattern in a city where a church was not yet. And you had no affiliation with the churches he established nearby (despite perhaps some of your members being aware of him), and did not receive his letters, reading only the 4 gospels. Does that represent oneness or not?
The bible describes interaction between the local churches - by way of Paul's letters and ministry, and also by way of practical help.