[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city?

The operative word here is "WAS". There WAS one church in every city. There WAS one apostle Paul, who "did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it, but he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12) There WAS one group of original apostles. There WAS one "Revelation" received by the apostle John. There WAS one group of church fathers who received the wisdom and knowledge to assemble the New Testament. Getting the picture? Even if one subscribes to be a "continuationist" (believing that there are apostles today), no serious scholar or widely accepted teacher has ever claimed that we have apostles today like the original scripture writing apostles, such as Paul, Peter, John etc.

Yes, it appears that there may have been only one church in one city in the infancy of the church. But it cannot be considered as something prescriptive - something for the church for all places and all times. Only baptism and the Lord's table were such prescriptive "commandments". We know that by the time of the end of Paul's life and ministry, many false teachers had already appeared on the scene. What if one of these false teachers had started/or taken over "the one church in anytown"? Were the genuine believers in this one particular city supposed to go against God and their conscience and meet with this false teacher and his followers? I submit that were not bound to do so. In fact, the apostles strongly urged the genuine believers to avoid, and even oppose, if necessary.

This was probably the first legitimate reason for "divisions" in the church. And the situation remains so all these centuries later. But there are still genuine believers who will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and enter his fold. Amen. May it be so Lord.
-