[OBW]

Originally Posted by Gubei

OBW,

I have to disagree.

Igzy is prescriving something by denying other's model. If that is not prescription, what is prescription?

First, denying that there is a prescription is not prescribing anything. You are suggesting that we must find a description that matches what we do to allow it. But Paul clearly admonished freedom in Christ where there was not something requiring something different. That may not have ever been said in the context of how to meet in terms of one city one church, or simply assembling with believers however we do it, but it was freedom in Christ.

The biggest problem with your position is not that it is clearly wrong, but rather that you state that it is “according to the Bible” when it is at most following a pattern seen in the Bible but not stated as “the” way. But what do you do when Paul makes mention of the church in someone’s house? Was that not in reference to an assembly of believer’s in a house where there was also referenced a church in the city?

This is where YP’s desire to associate the term “church” or “assembly” only with a single physical gathering is potentially incorrect. We see clear references to an assembly ─ in this case within a house ─ as the church (assembly) while the entirety of the city was also referred to as the church. This happened in the letters to the Romans (16:11), Corinthians (1st 16:19), and in Colossians (4:15) referring to a house that was either in Colossae or Laodicea. So Paul referred to the city as a whole, but also to a subset of that city ─ a group meeting in a house ─ as the church. He did not call them Hall 2, or refer to them as derelict in understanding the right way to meet because they met separately. They must not have met with the others or there would be no need to greet them separately from the general greeting in the beginning of the letter.

So, do you use a piano in your meetings? Guitar(s) (acoustic or electric)? These are not described as being part of worship in the New Testament. We now read from books. Should we revert to scrolls?

I know that these may seem silly or even sarcastic. But I am serious. If there must be a description to allow something that is not prohibited but there is nothing prescribing something contrary, then much of what we now do must be ended.

You want to talk about the Trinity. Yes, I accept the truth of the Trinity. But I will assert that despite Justyn’s claim that there is a clear doctrine on the subject, it is not that clearly singular even among the most ardent evangelical groups. In fact, making a general doctrine of the Trinity that must be agreed to in full or you are a heretic is quite problematic. When I review the Berean’s own version, I am happy to accept it as essentially true. But they would argue that disagreeing, even nuancing it a little, results in teaching a “different Christ” with suspicion about its adherents’ salvation. I have written several times in this forum that the doctrine of the Trinity is more rightly a set of boundaries within which the truth exists. There are many statements about the person and nature of God as three and as one, but never stated in a way to reconcile them fully in Human terms. This leaves some amount of mystery and uncertainty. I see many evangelical groups as believing within bounds, but very close to tritheism. On the other hand, the LC was within bounds but very close to modalism. I should not need to say more about this.

Actually, my position on the Trinity is somewhat consistent with what I am saying about how to practice “church.” The clear word is to assemble ─ even not forsake assembling. Paul told some that were meeting together to quit preferring one leader over another (Corinth). (And the LC took up sides to say that Lee was the one to follow.) But he did not condemn Priscilla and Aquila for the “church that meets at their house” when they were in Rome or in Corinth. Same for Nympha.

As for the divisive person, I have seen this in action. A sister began to cause division in our assembly. After some warning, and some time, she was asked to leave. While we did not send letters to every other assembly to exclude them from all fellowship, we presume that if the patterns begin again somewhere else, it will happen again. Do you presume that “have nothing to do with them” means that everyone everywhere must exclude them? It does not say that. I should note that this person is not necessarily persona non grata at IBC. She has been back on occasion. But without some kind of clear repentance, she is not welcome to regularly be among the fellowship at IBC. This was not a case of excommunication.

Last, the issue with the “ministries” in Phil 1 was not that they did or did not belonged to Paul’s ministry. It was about actions taken for the sake of creating affliction for Paul. Do you presume that ministries not belonging to Paul always caused him affliction or were somehow in conflict with him? These verses to do not say that. They do not suggest that a ministry must belong to Paul. You have taken verses in which Paul rejoiced in the proclamation of the gospel even by some who thought that such public proclamation might have a negative impact on him in his prison, and turned it into a claim that ministries were either Paul’s or were in conflict with Paul. These verses do not say that. This is an assumption not supported by the scripture.

You complain about my sole use of logic. This is patently false. If your Christian experience must be based upon definite words of scripture to prescribe how it is to be lived, then my logic is faulty. But everything I have said, even if you think it is just logic, is actually application of logic to scripture. And when I say logic, I include the simple use of grammar to establish what the verses actually say. Lee said a lot of things that the verses he used to support his positions did not actually say. It is the same with your understanding of one church one city. The words written do not clearly support the requirement that all persons within the confines of a city (a devise of human organization) must meet as one assembly. They also do not deny it. They do not require that there be more than one assembly. But even the presumed description of one city one church is undermined by the three instances I have previously mentioned. IN those cases, there is a general reference to the church in the city, but also references to the church in someone’s house (and they are not the ones presumed to be receiving the letter initially). What that means is not stated. Lee presumed it away and claimed a prescription. But his presumption is nothing but presumption. It is not some divine inspiration to say it means something that the words actually written do not say.

Complain about my logic if you will. But just because logic is in use does not make it invalid. Even scripture’s negative reference to logic was not put there to allow anyone to ignore the actual words and say they mean something else. It was to assert that what it says is true even if you can’t logically understand how it could be. But you must use logic. If you cannot reconcile what you say with the words from which you claim your support, then you cannot win. And I do not mean win in terms of just beat me or Igzy in a debate. You cannot claim to actually understand and follow scripture if you allow yourself to follow doctrines that are contrary to what scripture actually says. We are using your verses as well. We really do not need others to refute your position. And unless you can establish that there is a prescribed way that contradicts our model, or find other scriptural fault in our model, it should be acceptable. Our model is not prescriptive. We do not need to prove it. If we could, it would be prescriptive. The only way to refute our model is to claim yours is prescriptive (which you cannot establish) or to find scripture that stands against our model. We need no scripture to actively allow it. Just like we need no scripture to have a piano.

But Igzy is denying the one city one church model. He is doing so by 1) demonstrating that scripture does not command it and 2) shows that following it` can only result in errors that contradict it. It is a circle of errors that cannot stand as a prescribed way.

Way too long.