Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Local churches are biblical. What is not biblical is the way you apply the idea. The Bible also supports house churches. And there is no reason, other that a desire to insist on local churches, to claim those house churches were actually local churches.

Further there is no prescription for local churches in the Bible. But in your insistence on them you run roughshod over other doctrines that the Bible does plainly prescribe, such as allowing people to be fully persuaded in their own minds. You have no right to insist on things the Bible does not insist on. And it most plainly does NOT insist on local churches.

Sorry, the Bible just does NOT support your beliefs like you wish they did. Your claims are false and non-biblical.

We apply it in the same way that Paul did. We call a church by its locality name, nothing else. All of his letters are addressed to localities, not denominations. Paul would never write a letter to a denomination, or a sect, that bore "another name". The bible refers to all churches by their locality. Paul's letters, Revelation, that's biblical. There is no case of the church being referred to by anything other. This is biblical support. But I suppose people will continue to justify their definition of church according to their own experience, fuzzy feelings, spine chills, or whatever. But they won't be able to differentiate between the words church, sect, and cult ,because they don't have a clear understanding of what the church is. Eventually they will end up meeting in an LGBT church just because they feel the Spirit there. Maybe they sympathize with its doctrines, I don't know. But our definition of such a church can protect against this happening, because it is not based upon feeling, doctrine, or quality.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible refers to all churches by their locality. There is no case of the church being referred to by anything other. This is biblical support.

Except for the church in Philemon's house (Phi 1:2), the church in Aquila and Priscilla's house (1 Cor 16:19), the church in Nympha's house (Col 4:15) and again the church at Aquila and Priscilla's house (Rom 16:5). There were referred to not by city, but by the tenants of the house they met in. So your above claim is FLAT FALSE.

Again, there is no compelling reason to believe these house churches were actually local churches, that is unless you are trying to push that doctrine, which Lee was and you are. Note Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their house in Corinth and also at their house in Rome. Do you really think Paul would refer to two different local churches by the names of the same two people that happened to house each? That doesn't make sense. Just look at the wording. Paul in Romans greets a bunch of saints. And then greets the church in Aquila's and Priscilla's house. It doesn't make sense from context and wording that the church in their house corresponded to the whole church in Rome. Paul greeted more people than could fit in the house of two itinerant missionaries, and there had to be many more saints in the church. How could the whole church meet there?

No, the only safe bet is that local churches and house churches were different. House churches blow a gaping hole in your insistence on local churches. Any fair-minded person can see that. Their existence should temper your boldness. The fact it doesn't is evidence of fanaticism and unreasonable, divisive dogma.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Except for the church in Philemon's house (Phi 1:2), the church in Aquila and Priscilla's house (1 Cor 16:19), the church in Nympha's house (Col 4:15) and again the church at Aquila and Priscilla's house (Rom 16:5). There were not referred to by city, but by the tenants of the house they met in. So your above claim is FLAT FALSE.

Again, there is no compelling reason to believe these house churches were actually local churches, that is unless you are trying to push that doctrine, which Lee was and you are. Note Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their house in Corinth and also at their house in Rome. Do you really think Paul would refer to two different local churches by the names of the same two people that happened to house each? That doesn't make sense. Just look at the wording. Paul in Romans' greets a bunch of saints. And then greets the church in Aquila's and Priscilla's house. It doesn't make sense from context and wording that the church in their house corresponded to the whole church in Rome. Paul greeted more people than could fit in the house of two itinerant missionaries, and there had to be many more saints in the church. How could the whole church meet there?

No, the only safe bet is that local churches and house churches were different. House churches blow a gaping hole in your insistence on local churches. Any fair-minded person can see that. Their existence should temper your boldness. The fact it doesn't is evidence of fanaticism and unreasonable, divisive dogma.

What is clear to me is that there is no denominational names given to those house churches. Paul does not even say "the house church of..." 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. When referring to more than one locality, scripture reverts to the plural word - churches. This rules out the idea of a church encompassing a number of localities, as most denominations do.

[Cal]

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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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 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 church in houses. Given that there are usually more than one house per city this make 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 show 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.

Of course the bible allows house churches. We, meet in houses, to an outsider, we are sometimes considered a "house church". But we do not let the house define us, but the locality. Just like Paul never writes a letter to "all the house churches in Corinth", but to the "church in Corinth". We see ourselves as one church. You are focusing on the nitty gritty about house churches to ignore the greater obvious - churches are defined by locality.

It is not correct to say they are different, and rather illogical. For example, take this verse:

Col 4:15 Salute the brothers which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

You seem to be read this as though the church in Laodicea and the church in Nymphas's house are different churches.

But Ellicott's commentary says "He is obviously a man of importance, a centre of Church life, in the Christian community at Laodicea."

So the church in Nymphas's house is part of the church in Laodicea. We should not count them as two churches, but the one and same church in Laodicea.

Going to Revelation, we see the church in Laodicea mentioned.
Revelation 3 "To the Church in Laodicea " Is the church in Nymphas's house mentioned? Not at all. Revelation is silent about house churches.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course the bible allows house churches. We, meet in houses, to an outsider, we are sometimes considered a "house church". But we do not let the house define us, but the locality. Just like Paul never writes a letter to "all the house churches in Corinth", but to the "church in Corinth". We see ourselves as one church. You are focusing on the nitty gritty about house churches to ignore the greater obvious - churches are defined by locality.

It is not correct to say they are different, and rather illogical. For example, take this verse:

Col 4:15 Salute the brothers which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

You seem to be read this as though the church in Laodicea and the church in Nymphas's house are different churches.

But Ellicott's commentary says "He is obviously a man of importance, a centre of Church life, in the Christian community at Laodicea."

So the church in Nymphas's house is part of the church in Laodicea. We should not count them as two churches, but the one and same church in Laodicea.

Going to Revelation, we see the church in Laodicea mentioned.
Revelation 3 "To the Church in Laodicea " Is the church in Nymphas's house mentioned? Not at all. Revelation is silent about house churches.

Evangelical, you cannot rightfully take "the church in Los Angeles" as your definition because you are not the definition of the church in Los Angeles. You are only a part of it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you cannot rightfully take "the church in Los Angeles" as your definition because you are not the definition of the church in Los Angeles. You are only a part of it.

An "assembly in a house in Los Angeles" is the same as "an assembly in Los Angeles". According to the New Testament, an assembly in a house or in a locality is the right definition of a church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you cannot rightfully take "the church in Los Angeles" as your definition because you are not the definition of the church in Los Angeles. You are only a part of it.

It appears more appropriate to say an assembly that takes the name as "the church in Los Angeles" is not the same as expressing of the church in Los Angeles. Calling yourselves the church in Los Angeles or the church in Bellevue is just taking a name to register by.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course the bible allows house churches. We, meet in houses, to an outsider, we are sometimes considered a "house church".

Paul wasn't an outsider, and yet he still recognized the house church. He did not make it clear that the house church and the local church were the same thing. You are stretching the limits of plausibility, so it's clear your definition is what it is because you have a predisposition to believe in locality, which is circular reasoning. The fact is another interpretation is reasonable. And that interpretation is that house churches are valid boundaries of churches.

If the church in the house were the same as the church in the city Paul would never have worded his references the way he did. If you wrote a letter to the church in the whole city, and the church in the house were the same thing, you would not have written along with other greetings, "greet the church in Joe's house." You would have said something like "greet the rest of the church, including those which meet at Joe's house." If you believed that the only valid church was the local church you would not have referred to houses churches in the manner Paul did--on four different occasions. That is, not if you wanted the matter of locality to be clear, and manifestly Paul didn't seem to care about that.

Some say local churches, some say houses churches too. Neither interpretation is completely verifiable. Both are reasonable in their own way, but neither is a clear winner. If the Lord wanted us to be sure that only local churches are valid he never would have allowed houses churches to be mentioned in the way they were, and he also would have made it more clear that local churches are the only option. But he left the door open to believe that house churches were valid. He must have had a reason. And it seems to me one reason must be to tell us "Don't be contentious about how others meet because you cannot be sure that you are completely right." In other words, he leaves doors open precisely because he doesn't want us to act like you and the LCM do about these matters.

If there are two or more reasonable interpretations of something in the Bible then his command to "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" should prevail. You have no right to push locality the way to do given the uncertainty of the issue. You proclaim you have certainty when reasonable minds realize you can't have it. The net result is your contentious attitude about the situation, and your unreasonable insistence on things you cannot be certain of. That's the reason the attitude of the LCM is such an issue. (And this is an example of how the pressure in the LCM to conform to an idea pushes them to be unreasonable.)

Yes, you can make a case for local churches. But that case does not win hands down. There are other reasonable interpretations. Given that you should respect them. But you don't. That's the problem.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong (I think it is, but that's not my point). I'm saying given the uncertainty of the matter you have no right to expect others to embrace it, and in doing so you violate tenets of oneness which are deeper and more important that just being "practically one."