Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - What is the boundary of the Local Church?

Drake · 02-17-2018, 07:36 AM

Ohio,

You have some of the facts but you are polarizing them to fit your history, perhaps to justify it. Here is what I mean.

You position the Antioch principle favorably but the Jerusalem principle negatively attributing it to Judaizers. Actually, both principles are revealed by God to show different models of the work, not about the administration of a local church. The beginning in Jerusalem was initiated by the Holy Spirit and the beginning in Antioch was also initiated by the Holy Spirit. Both Antioch and Jerusalem were centers of the work. They also were local churches. This is what makes Antioch and Jerusalem unique in that they were both local churches and centers of the work. As local churches their administration was local. Jerusalem did not control the churches in Samaria. Antioch did not control the churches raised up by the apostles sent from Antioch. However, as centers of the work, which was regional, they did manage the affairs of the work on an extra local basis. So we see, in the biblical record, Peter going to Joppa and then to the house of Cornelius and Caesarea and then returning to Jerusalem. In Antioch, the apostles went out for years at a time and lived in the places where they established local churches. Only to return years later. And we see a letter from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to Antioch to resolve the Acts 15 issue. It is apparent from that letter alone, that God was not using a power and control technique established by Judaizers to resolve the Acts 15 issue! Neither of these New Testament models change the administration of the local church. Which is local.

Your casting of the Jerusalem model as being formulated and a craft of Judaizers is unfounded and wrong. Both were a work of the Holy Spirit showing different circumstances of the work in the first century. Lastly, you appear to be suggesting that God sent Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the purpose of destroying the the church and the work that was centered at Jerusalem. That is a fallacy of argument by cutting up the puzzle pieces of history to fit your narrative.

Drake

02-17-2018, 07:36 AM	#212
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,075	Re: What is the boundary of the Local Church? Ohio, You have some of the facts but you are polarizing them to fit your history, perhaps to justify it. Here is what I mean. You position the Antioch principle favorably but the Jerusalem principle negatively attributing it to Judaizers. Actually, both principles are revealed by God to show different models of the work, not about the administration of a local church. The beginning in Jerusalem was initiated by the Holy Spirit and the beginning in Antioch was also initiated by the Holy Spirit. Both Antioch and Jerusalem were centers of the work. They also were local churches. This is what makes Antioch and Jerusalem unique in that they were both local churches and centers of the work. As local churches their administration was local. Jerusalem did not control the churches in Samaria. Antioch did not control the churches raised up by the apostles sent from Antioch. However, as centers of the work, which was regional, they did manage the affairs of the work on an extra local basis. So we see, in the biblical record, Peter going to Joppa and then to the house of Cornelius and Caesarea and then returning to Jerusalem. In Antioch, the apostles went out for years at a time and lived in the places where they established local churches. Only to return years later. And we see a letter from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to Antioch to resolve the Acts 15 issue. It is apparent from that letter alone, that God was not using a power and control technique established by Judaizers to resolve the Acts 15 issue! Neither of these New Testament models change the administration of the local church. Which is local. Your casting of the Jerusalem model as being formulated and a craft of Judaizers is unfounded and wrong. Both were a work of the Holy Spirit showing different circumstances of the work in the first century. Lastly, you appear to be suggesting that God sent Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the purpose of destroying the the church and the work that was centered at Jerusalem. That is a fallacy of argument by cutting up the puzzle pieces of history to fit your narrative. Drake