Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Ephesus is a church - city, not denomination, house/street name, or country
Smyrna is a church - city, not denomination...
Pergamum is a church- city, not denomination...
Thyatira is a church- city, not denomination...
Sardis is a church - city, not denomination...
Philadelphia is a church - city, not denomination...
Laodicea is a church - city, not denomination...
|
You are presuming that the reference to "church" in these places is to an assembly rather than to those in a city who are part of that larger "church" that is the universal body of Christ. The fact that you assert "city, no denomination" over an over is something not referred to in either way. The verses similarly do not declare that the mention of the "church" in connection with any of the city names is indicative of a single assembly rather than the whole of the believers in the area regardless of the actual number of assemblies there.
And several months ago you made a comment about the fact that these seven letters are to "the seven churches in Asia" followed by the naming of the seven churches in Asia. But there were other churches in Asia. At least one of them was written to by Paul. How do you now read "the" seven churches in Asia? Not so absolute and complete. Rather "the seven" is really a subset of more than seven. So maybe it is that your search of the minutia of the words is going well beyond what was being stated. All it meant was to address the issues of the Christians found in seven particular churches as they seemed to represent issues that were faced elsewhere, or would be faced elsewhere. It was not (and did not) provide anything definitive to confine the manner in which those in the named cities were meeting.
If the majority of commentators is to be believed, there was some kind of pagan practices going on in at least one city. Do you think that all of the God-fearing Christians would meet together with those who had such practices? Yet the letter did not ignore those with the pagan practices, but chastised them as part of the church that needed to deal with their deeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
But the idea itself, actually comes from church history. The Bible of course, The New Testament also speaks of the church as the one body of Christ composed of all true believers in all places, but it never speaks of a plurality of churches in one city (Col 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22; 2:14-21;3:6-10;4:4,12; 5:23-33). It comes as a jolt, but it must be said again that the modern concept of a plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.
|
But for the LRC faithful, it should also come as a jolt that the Bible never defines what constitutes an assembly of believers other than it be an assembly of believers. When someone makes such a broad, weeping statement about the number of "churches" in a city, they are talking about the number of assemblies.
To mix "church" as the body of Christ with "church" as an assembly of believers is an exercise in equivocation. The church as the body of Christ is not defined by assemblies. It is not limited in scope nor separated by lack of being "together." On the other hand, "church" as an assembly does not have an impact on the church as the universal body of Christ, whether as visible or invisible.
In this city, there are many churches (assemblies) which together display the Body of Christ. You may like to say that there is a problem with the fact that there are so many assemblies and that they do not all agree on doctrines. But all those assemblies do not view their differences as being bars to the unity of the body in faith. They do not declare the others to be "not church." And they join together for many purposes, both social and spiritual (of course, everything is spiritual for the believer).
But there are a few very small groups around which are determined that there is a problem and that lack of total unity is a problem. And they take this position from the point of view that their position is correct and that everyone else is simply wrong and is therefore "not really church." So if there is a problem of division in the body of Christ, the most serious division the one that stands between you and everyone else. But it is not there because of everyone else. It is there because you declare that it is there and you cannot be one with the others (except if they drop everything and come to you).
And since you cannot defend your claims of being the sole holders of truth and right with respect to all the things that you declare to be keys to the "proper" or "genuine" church, you are forcing an unsupportable set of rules upon everyone else to either join-up or be cast aside.
You are the division. You are the worst division. There is no other analysis. Just like saying "city, not denomination" earlier as if it somehow makes it more real than it already isn't. You just say it over and over but cannot defend it with anything other than the reciting of verses that do not say what you try to force out of them.
Eisegesis. Reading into the verses. Confirmation bias. You believe in Nee's city-church, so you find it where it is not.