Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Here are my issues with "The Ground of the Church" doctrine.
I agree that the temple is a type of the church. I also agree that in the OT the ground of the Temple was very significant. I also agree that the ground of the church was specifically identified as something that would keep the oneness. So on these three points I completely agree with WN and WL.
What I don't agree with is the definition of what that ground is. In a bizarre twist WN used two inferential verses (appoint elders in every city / appoint elders in every church) to build his NT doctrine. This doesn't make sense. Why would something this crucial be inferential?
To me the NT gives a very clear black and white answer as to what the ground of the church is: the blood of Christ.
In the OT typology the ground refers to where Abraham offered up Isaac as a type of Christ as our burnt offering. Instead of Isaac he offered a ram, again signifying Christ's substitutionary death for us.
This ground was also the same place where David purchased a threshing floor as a peace offering and sin offering. David was a type of Christ, Christ's crucifixion was a peace offering and a sin offering.
In typology the ground signifies the place where Christ was crucified for us. It demonstrates the price God the father paid and the price God the Son paid.
I was redeemed by Jesus blood. This is why whenever the NT talks about false prophets it reminds us 'the MOTA wasn't crucified for you, Jesus was'. Paul wasn't and the super apostles weren't, it was Jesus. He is our redeemer.
A big part of the teaching involves the point that you can't build on a piece of land until you bought it. Jesus blood was the price paid. He didn't redeem a city boundary line for fluctuating cities in the world. He paid for us.
If you don't agree that the price paid for the ground of the church is the blood of Christ then you are involved in a perverted gospel with a different Jesus. If you do agree that the price paid was the blood of Christ but think that He somehow was purchasing city boundary lines that is idiotic.
It is the blood of Christ that keeps us one, not the fact that we call our building such and such or that we delineate the boundaries of the church by the city boundary. For example, I used to live in Canaan NH, the Local church was minuscule and was in Hanover, NH. No one cared that I lived outside the city boundary. Hypocritical and idiotic to really think that is important. What they did care about was that I stood on the blood of Christ.
|
ZNP I think you are half right because you are correct if speaking about the spiritual side of things but your definition is impractical in the real world. It is true that we are one because of the blood of Christ, and we can apply the blood of Christ to keep the oneness. Yet I believe practically we need something tangible in order to be practically one. Look around you - Christians are not meeting together just because they all have the blood of Christ. Every believer has the Father, the Spirit, has the blood, but look around you - where is the oneness?
If the ground of the church is the blood of Christ, and this ground of the church would keep the oneness - then how do you explain so many denominations? Unless they live in a hole, anyone can see that the blood of Christ which all believers have, has not kept them one in a practical sense.
In practical experience believers have found that something else keeps us one. Each denomination has their own "something else", but we prefer that "something else" to be what the bible/early church reveals it should be (the locality), rather than a Confession, Creed, speaking in tongues, methods of baptism, or allegiance to a centuries old tradition and organized institutions.
Here is a simple analogy - in a family of 10, they all share the same blood and DNA. Now in one sense they are one because they are a family. But practically, trying to get them together for Thanksgiving is incredibly hard because some don't like celebrating Thanksgiving, others hate turkey, others don't want to travel too far. As this simple analogy shows, just having the same blood is not enough for practical oneness.