YP,
I don't believe what I'm saying is based on worldly principles.
No offense, but I really don't think you've followed my point. I'm am not concerned about determining which group is right, either, because I'm not sure we can know.
I'm saying that the LC model claims to know which group is right (theirs), but really can give no one any practical way of determining which is right. That very fact to me shows their error.
My posts have been directed to those who believe in the LC model, not to you who obviously don't. My point is to refute the LC model, not to propose a replacement at this time. You are proposing a replacement, or a better way. That's fine, but it really has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is to show that the city-church model as practiced by the LC cannot work. I'm trying to make clear what I see as a severe weakness in it. I might like to talk about alternatives later, but the fact that you have an alternative does not mean I'm discussing the wrong thing now.
Let me try again. Two groups in a city. Both receive all believers and keep the faith. But each has different teaching and practice focuses. Both claim to be the city-church and to have the elders who are by necessity over the whole city. Each thinks the other is sectarian. Which one is the true church? I submit that, all things being equal, neither can know to the point that they can have the boldness to say the other definitely isn't. In other words, neither can do what the LCs do in claiming that everyone needs to join them, which amounts to an arbitrary requirement which is a seed of division.
|