Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.
As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.
There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.
Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.
You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.
|
I think you're speaking from the point of view of the universal church, not the practical local church. In that sense you are right. It is like we believe that all believers are the church in the city.
But practically suppose there are 100 believers in the city who never meet each other. We cannot call that a practical local church. This idea is not practical. A local church only exists when the ekklesia is present, the assembly. If there is no assembly, there's no local church in a practical sense.
I think we are not the church in the city, unless we meet as the church in the city. For example, if 100 Christians get together to watch a game, that is not a church, that is a group of people gathering for sport. If 100 Christians get together to celebrate the Catholic mass, technically that is not a church but a group of people gathering for the Catholic mass.
I think the early church history shows that each territory or city had elders or bishops, and the church administration was very much territorial in nature. Titus 1:5 says "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and
ordain elders in every city". They were thinking about the territorial boundaries of the church. Not denominational boundaries or boundaries based upon teachings and doctrines.