[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I may have misread the emphasis of this particular point, and therefore the thrust of your post. But to spring from a post that is suggesting that scripture does not prescribe one church (presumably meaning one assembly) to the start off of "Maybe the better question is whether the NT supports the practice of two churches in one city?" appeared (to me) to be a semi-rhetorical question asking something like "well if it doesn't support/prescribe only one, then would you say it supports/prescribes two?". (Not sure how to end the punctuation of a statement that concludes with a question within quotes. Seems weird the way I did it but confusing without the last period. That is why I was only "OK in English back in school.)

No I agree my post was too brief and therefore confusing, but I think Awareness and Igzy made up for that so I didn't see the need to get the duct tape.

So if you meant "support" and not "prescribe," my answer would be "yes, it does support two." But if your meaning was "prescribe," I would disagree. It does not prescribe anything.

While the whole of your post could be led in either direction, the blunt opening question as to whether it supports two gave it a combative tone (again, to me) suggesting that the rest should be understood as refuting the rejection of only one assembly in a city.

Sorry for the tone and confusion. I'll try to write better in the future.

I get your questions about some groups that have some need to rebaptize believers in their water and in their way. And there surely are some of those. That is a different issue from whether they are legitimate assemblies of the church (universal and in the city). It does point to certain levels of divisiveness. But meeting with any particular group for whatever reason will always have some level of divisiveness in it.

Yes, that is my point.

And if someone returns with a statement like "well just meet with whoever is the closest group no matter what they are like" then you might have a chance at no divisiveness. Until you honestly believe that clearly destructive teachings are occurring and simply opening your mouth to disagree gets you excommunicated. Then there is division, even within that group, even if you keep your mouth shut and just suffer it.

Which is why I limited this to two very important teachings. I was taught in the LRC that to take the Lord's table with any other Christians was a sin. I was also baptized again by the LRC "just to be safe". My point is that these two teachings are divisive and create "two" churches in one city which violates WN teaching that there is one church in one city

Yes, the groups with "closed communion" have a theological problem unless they somehow are truly convinced that no one else is saved and in a good standing before God. But that is seldom the case. But that is not an argument for one church in a city. It actually is an argument for at least two. One that holds exclusivism, and one that is open and cannot in good conscience help propagate that exclusivist position as the image of God. Add one more truly problem issue that is held by another group and you have at least three.

Hence the hypocrisy. The LSM teaches that there is one church in one city, but their exclusivism necessitates that there are at least 2. They argue that these are genuine Christians that don't meet with them and they argue that all of these Christians are members of the body of Christ and part of the church in their city. So I find their practice to directly contradict their teaching.

No, it is not ideal. But if you move to a small community with two assemblies, one somewhat closed and the other more open, how do you choose? If they are both open, how to you chose? If both closed? The point is that even if you just stay home, you are choosing between them (or against them both) and it is "of your choice." You must choose. But in a way that is not simply divisive.

Well you could pray and ask for the Lord's leading. Perhaps He'll lead you to the one closest to your home (to cut down on gas consumption?). Anyway, I agree that two assemblies or congregations in one city doesn't violate the concept of "one church one city" (the concept, not the teaching by the LSM). I have already mentioned that I meet with a church of several thousand. I have also freely attended other churches in NYC (Time's Square Church, Brooklyn Tabernacle, etc) as do many of the members i meet with. We consider ourselves one with these Christians and have coordinated with them on projects (The UN rally concerning Sudan in 2000, etc). Having 2 or more congregations, each with and administration doesn't mean that we are not one. If you have a church in a small town with 100 members that live in a total of 50 dwellings, does that mean they aren't one because the members have separate homes? But, if I refuse to admit that you are a true member, refuse to admit that your baptism was legitimate or that your Lord's table is legitimate that does make us two.

Pretty tall order.

It seems to me that the more important thing for any of us is not figuring out what way is the way, but becoming those who can meet with virtually anyone, even though we regularly meet with those who we generally identify as similar to ourselves. It is not about making the group right, but making us righteous in how we deal with any group.

In other words, it is less about the group and more about ourselves.

And I realize that this sort of argues against discussing the errors of any group, including the LRC. There are still contexts in which discussion of differences should occur, and especially where those differences are harmful to the spiritual and psychological well-being of their members.

That is the point. If you are truly one with everyone else (as much as is possible) then you wouldn't create teaching to exclude. However, the LRC teaching is designed to draw a line around approved churches where Baptism and the Lord's table can be received and exclude all others. So their teaching on "one church one city" is extremely exclusive. Which is very hypocritical since the spirit of the teaching is to be one with all genuine believers in a city, not to be exclusive.