Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
On the contrary, Acts 9:31 states “So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied.” This verse gives us the freedom to group whole regions containing cities together and refer to that as "the church". Would you then make the claim that because the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee are referred to as "the church" in this verse, then that means there are no individual churches in their respective cities? Of course not. In the same way, just because the Lord Jesus has chosen to group an entire city together and refer to it as "the church" that does not mean there were not its respective house churches. He is simply addressing his called out ones at the city level versus the regional level or the house level. Whether I choose to group the believers together as "the church" at the neighborhood level, community level, city level, etc. they are still "the church". Having one does not exclude having the other. It is merely a different form of grouping.
Neither paradigm can be disproved based on these verses alone. However, from other places in the New Testament we know that the “one city, one church” pattern IS disputable in some places and IS NOT binding upon all believers.
|
Sorry for the multiple posts in a row on this thread; I actually had to get back out of bed for this one so I could get it out of my head and be able to sleep.
I do like this example, but out of curiosity I looked up WL's footnote on Acts 9:31 to see if he addressed this one or glossed over it, since this is an example that contradicts one church/one city (OCOC). Footnote 1 on "church" in this verse states: "Since at that time the church had spread only to the provinces of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and since the word
whole covers all the places where the church existed,
church in singular is used here in the universal sense, although there must have been churches in the local sense in a number of the cities of these three provinces."
I have a few mixed thoughts on this. My first thought is that it is convenient of WL to explain it that way so that it fits his unique OCOC interpretation. And of course any LC-er reading won't bat an eye at the explanation or dig into it any further.
In plenty of other places in the Bible, the plural "churches" is used. To follow WL's line of thought that the singular "church" here is used in the universal sense, why would that be? To use "church" here rather than "churches" (which would flow just as smoothly, still make as much sense, and wouldn't lose any impact) means the universal/local distinction is made for a reason. It's like making the distinction between the three/one, economical/essential Spirit. However, in the pertinent verses for that distinction (too tired to look them up right now), you can see from the verses that He is three when it refers to His economy and work, but one in essence. So, if OCOC is legit, what could the reason be for going through the trouble of making the distinction of the universal aspect of the church in these verses in particular, if WL's interpretation is to be believed?
Another thought is that the universal church is all the saints across every place AND time. I will be honest and say that I do not know the Bible in near as much detail as many of you here do. Am I right that the church is new enough at this point in the Bible that time is not a factor yet, as far as the universal aspect goes? So to say "church (singular) refers to the universal aspect", since it includes all the churches on the earth at that point, none of which have disappeared over time, could be correct?
[I'm adding this paragraph after having closed my computer, laid back down to bed, and gotten back up again to type this additional thought so I could sleep]: Actually, if the universal aspect refers to all across place and time.....in time there are churches all over the earth. So how could referring to the church throughout a specific region at a specific point in time be considered the universal aspect? You cannot put regional boundaries on the church when referring to it universally because place and time boundaries do not apply in the universal aspect! Based on this I think it debunks OCOC (or at least WL's explaining it away as referring to the universal aspect), but would love to hear others' thoughts.