Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
What is clear to me that there is no denominational names given to the house churches. Paul does not even say "the house church of...". It is the "church in the household of...". It's both, actually. The church in the household of such and such must reside in some locality. They are the church in the locality and also the church in the house.
In the Recovery, we sometimes refer to the church, or meeting, in such a such a person's house. Yet we believe we are all part of the one same church in the city. A church in a house is also a locality church.
What we cannot find, I believe, is any example of a church being larger than a city.
|
Now you are tap dancing on very thin ice. First you said the Bible did not reference any church except by city. I gave you four examples that proved that claim was false, so now you try to change the focus.
It is not any more true to say the church in the house is the same as the church in the city as it is to say the church in the city is the same as the universal church. Yes, they are the same in nature, but they are different.
The Bible plainly allows churches based on the boundaries of houses. Given that there are usually more than one house per city this makes it reasonable to claim that there can be more than one church in a city. (Don't get me wrong, there is still the church in the city, but there is also the church in the house and they are not made up of exactly the same group of people.)
House churches place reasonable doubt on your claims. To insist on locality in the light of them shows you to be in the realm of fanaticism.
As for your weird and unbiblical obsession with names, whatever. Grow up. Get a life. Do something that shows you have some sense.
You've been shown twice tonight to not know what your talking about. Maybe you should take a break.