Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Also, it doesn't matter if "everyone agrees". The goal of the forum is to flesh out the arguments that LSM can make. You want someone with a vested interest in finding error.
|
That much I understand, as long as sensible people know it is like the old joke about economists, "If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end they would never reach a conclusion."
So if you are talking theory, sure, talk to clarify opinions. But if you are talking about application then a doctrine like the local ground is useless without significant agreement. A person can argue all day that they are "right" about what constitutes a proper church, but it doesn't mean anything if they can't persuade enough people to agree with them to have any significant affect on things. The local ground doctrine will never be accepted by anything but a tiny minority. So, ultimately, it is useless.
Further it is detrimental. I am persuaded that God left the boundaries of the church purposely vague so that we would be less likely to define a legality which would inevitably limit change and reform. If the Catholics had gotten wind of one-church-one-city that's how they would have set it up. Oh, they would have had multiple buildings and congregations, but they would have just called them all part of the "church in.. ", and would have said that any unsanctioned meetings were "not on the proper ground of oneness" just like... you-know-who. In short, the elusive "boundary of the church," the acceptance of which some think would further God's purpose, would inevitably restrict it.
God always leaves a door open to reform. The local ground closes it. The LCM is proof.