Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
There is actually nothing in what I said to which "That's because . . ." could be a response.
That is your typical MO. You ignore what is posted and respond to the question you wish had been asked.
But if there was going to be such a problem with denominations (and God surely knew what was coming) you would expect there to have been some kind of statement(s) that actually addressed the situation. No matter how you phrase it, Paul did not address the current situation. He did not define what should be the name. He did not say that this is how you gather. He only said that separating because of differences in favorite teacher was a problem. And it was only a problem because it was clear that they could not get along with each other. They were openly antagonistic with each other. Can you actually say that the various groups that you so despise are openly antagonistic with each other? (And one or two examples using other small exclusivist groups, or pointing to errors of the past cannot be painted onto the whole that is mostly not like that.
|
God knowing what was coming is an interesting way to put it. Could it also mean God knew the Roman Catholic church was coming and prepared Luther 1500 years later? But we find nothing in the bible about the Reformation.
I don't think the groups I despise are openly antagonistic with each other. Although they used to be, not only antagonistic, but at war. So, given that they are not antagonistic, why do they continue to promote their existence.
You have mistakenly assumed that just because the bible is silent about these church things it means we are free to do as we please and there are no rules.
Commonly held views in Christianity today such as "pray about which church to go to", "go to a church that suits you", cannot be found in the bible. Not because there were no way to do it, but because they were no alternatives than to meet with "the church" in "the city". If you were a Gentile there was not even a "gentile church" that you could go to. There was no "jew church" and "gentile church", there was just "the church".
The bible is silent about these church things because there was no need to think about or consider "how to do it" because there were no denominations. It was just done, in a particular way that everyone agreed to.
Whether it was about female preachers or whether they should meet on a Sunday or a Friday, there was a consistency that united them all together.
This consistency is indicated by "as in all the churches":
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican all believe that the early churches were consistent and things were done in a certain way. This is why they maintain this consistency today. There is also the backing of early church historians and theologians (I have quoted Wallace in previous discussions) on this.
The mistake of the house church movement, baptists, and community churches, is to think that everything can be done independently of other churches and in a way that they think is best for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But I know what the deal is with you and Drake (who has been rather quiet lately). It is not that there is division, but that it is not following you. You presume that there is a magic formula that makes every theological error go away. And while the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith, you declare that they are right but incomplete. And the missing ingredient is "ground." You think that ground will make all things right. That the errors in theology will simply go away because you are "on the ground." Of course, you don't think that they will be simply ignored, but rather it will be shown that your theology (all of it) is correct sufficiently to be the one that all must follow.
|
I don't know what sort of reason you think Drake and I would have for wanting them to follow us. We get no benefit from that.
What do you mean by "the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith"? I would say the core of the faith is Christ and we agree on that. I think you show a deep misunderstanding of what the Recovery/local churches are about if you think this is about theological error. "the ground" is a simple way to say that Christians of the one locality should meet with other Christians in the same locality because they are in the locality and not because of other reasons like baptist doing a better church service or Pentecostals allowing tongue worship and hand waving. Or, on topic - because of a belief that they are the continued unbroken line since the apostles. In fact the Orthodox priests today really do wear either simple black or highly decorated and adorned flower pots on their heads, just like the 12 disciples did. Insert verse about men with head coverings in church here.