The Ground Of The Church

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Oregon

The New Testiment is full of verses showing that in the apostles days all the believers in each city where the gospel went were the church in that city. There were no multible chuches in localities. Because there are no verses in the bible such as II Igzy 4:3 " Thou shalt gather as the church in your city" you claim that the scriptures don't teach one church one city. The posters here willfully take their own logic over the scriptures.

Oregon:

Given that what you say is true, what is your response, if any? How do we relate to our brothers and sisters who do what you say they do? I'm mostly concerned that I might be one who could be subject to such a charge on some issue or other and I'd like to know, if I could, how I might discern the Spirit's leading in the circumstance as opposed to just having to choose between my own logic and another's presentation of verses.

In a room full of Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, my own logic might be superior to the scriptures cited. On the other hand, faced with substantial scriptural proof from a recognized orthodox teacher, I might stubbornly resist to remain with my own considerations.

I'm in agreement with you on the doctrinal point you have presented. Some on this forum hold sharply divergent opinions. We surely would prefer to preserve the oneness of the Spirit here, but I'm pretty sure I could talk until I was blue in the face and some would never change their minds on this point.

In other words, they insist you and I are wrong and we insist that they are wrong and we're not really getting anywhere with that for whatever reason. How can I be comfortable that I'm not the one in self-delusion other than to take it before the Lord and accept my inner sense as more reliable than their presentation? If the Spirit is the true teacher, what shall we say about those who try to teach us something that the Spirit isn't confirming?

I don't really have any answers but I'm pretty sure that brotherly love should be the key factor with whatever response we have (and such is my expectation from those who might insist that I drop my position instead!)

Obviously, my inquiry goes far beyond the particular topic at hand but I think it's really something we need to consider here if we truly wish to have fruitful fellowship, on this topic or any other point of departure...

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Oregon:

Given that what you say is true, what is your response, if any? How do we relate to our brothers and sisters who do what you say they do? I'm mostly concerned that I might be one who could be subject to such a charge on some issue or other and I'd like to know, if I could, how I might discern the Spirit's leading in the circumstance as opposed to just having to choose between my own logic and another's presentation of verses.

Good questions, and relevant to any topic on which there are varying weights placed on varying sets of scriptures.

My own take is this: when I base my oneness on the necessity of the other one coming to meet me, rather than vice versa, then I am in for a long and cold wait in the dark. Here is the old complaint: "When the others just see my way (my logic, the primacy of my crucial verses, etc), then we will all get along. Then all problems will be over and we will have heaven on earth." It will be some variation on this theme. "You must come to where I am."

Then I see the action of God. He loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son. (John 3:16).

While we were yet sinners, God loved us anyway. Christ died for us in our wretched state. (Rom. 5:6,8).

God manifested His love for us by sending His only begotten Son, that we might have life and live through this One. (1 John 4:9).

Herein is real love, not that we loved God [we could not], but that God loved us and sent His Son as a propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10).

Any attempt by man to bridge the gap, to cover the lack, to make up the lost ground, are illusion and vanity. From Adam and Eve's fig leaves to the tower of Babel and right up through. God alone can bridge the divide.

So to assume we are in the truth, and to expect others to come to our stand, our "ground", is perhaps a tad presumptuous. Rather we see the sending God. We have the real truth, God's love come into our hearts (Romans 5:5), that we might also be the ones stretching forth.

This is why I so strongly disagree with the events of the past few years. Let's assume Titus was wrong and the Anaheims were right. Let's assume the GLA churches with a cacaphony of electric music and dramatizations were in error.

But cutting off believers who are not in sin, but merely in subjective interpretational error, is to me not the love of God. We should take a stand for the truth (scripture, logic, the testimony of history, and even our own experiences and subjective "feelings"), but I believe the greatest truth of all is love. God has commended His own love to us, in Christ Jesus, and we therefore can commend God's love to one another. Cutting off one another over disagreements may in fact be love, but I have yet to be persuaded of this by any of the means I have listed above.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

But cutting off believers who are not in sin, but merely in subjective interpretational error, is to me not the love of God. We should take a stand for the truth (scripture, logic, the testimony of history, and even our own experiences and subjective "feelings"), but I believe the greatest truth of all is love. God has commended His own love to us, in Christ Jesus, and we therefore can commend God's love to one another. Cutting off one another over disagreements may in fact be love, but I have yet to be persuaded of this by any of the means I have listed above.

Fine, aron. I understand the same way. But I'm still puzzled.

How to remain in oneness with those who would actually denounce your "stand for the truth" as you propose?

One proposes that there's no possilbility for anything other than one assembly in a place. Another proposes that there's no practical possibilty for only one church in a place of any size. Do they agree to disagree and praise the Lord together? Do they agree to disagree but exercise the freedom separate just the same?

More to my immediate point, however, what to do about someone who strongly believes that your "stand" is beyond the pale? How do you maintain your "stand" while remaining one with such a one who wishes to withdraw???

Have you become a stumbling block for the sake of your truth, which itself is not confirmed by more than your own conscience????

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

... what to do about someone who strongly believes that your "stand" is beyond the pale? How do you maintain your "stand" while remaining one with such a one who wishes to withdraw???

If my stand includes as it's cornerstone repentance in the face of God's overwhelming love, then I don't violate it when I reach out to others, acknowledging my at least partial error. Only God is 100% right. The rest of us, including me, are at least somewhat in error.

Do I always live it? No, I can be arrogant and self-righteous and judgmental. But at least in theory, I think this approach can allow movement without being violated.

God's love, ultimately, conquers all. It's just a matter of time.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

One proposes that there's no possilbility for anything other than one assembly in a place. Another proposes that there's no practical possibilty for only one church in a place of any size. Do they agree to disagree and praise the Lord together? Do they agree to disagree but exercise the freedom separate just the same?

"..God has called us to peace." 1 Cor 7:15b.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Oregon:
In other words, they insist you and I are wrong and we insist that they are wrong and we're not really getting anywhere with that for whatever reason.

Not true. It's not you or Oregon I am trying to convince. It's those looking on. It's for that reason that I try to present as plain and intelligent an argument as possible. Gubei has, too. Oregon hasn't. He's acted as if the points I've made don't exist.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

If the Spirit is the true teacher, what shall we say about those who try to teach us something that the Spirit isn't confirming?

I don't really have any answers but I'm pretty sure that brotherly love should be the key factor with whatever response we have (and such is my expectation from those who might insist that I drop my position instead!)

I love this question because it goes to the heart of what I struggle with continually.

First, if our position is unyeilding love, how can someone insist we drop that towards them? They often will ask us to drop it towards "others" if we are to join them. In other words, join the "quarantine" or whatever barricade they have erected to fellowship.

Can we say to one involved in struggle, "I am one with you but not one with your antagonism towards _____ ?"

I think so. I believe so. I hope so. I believe love covers all, love suffers all, love ultimately conquers all.

If God could love us while we were yet sinners, while we were yet unlovable, unloving, unlovely, then surely we can tolerate others who are intolerant, especially if they are intolerant of us, especially if they can't tolerate our tolerance! I know that's a mouthful, but I think it makes sense.

If you think I am making these points up, see my earlier post (#217)responding to YP's question. I have a few verses there. Also, I can attest that I was not "good material" for anything, but God loved me and reached me anyway. Cannot I now, with this love dwelling in me, do the same toward others?

So I think that this is a "stand" we can hold to even while we move toward others. I know that the Lord Jesus didn't have much tolerance toward the intolerant; he was gentler on the drunkards and publicans than he was on the religious holier-than-thou folks. But only Jesus is without sin; the rest of us can rightly take the place of repentant sinners.

So there's my thought; whether it's valid is open to question, and whether I can live up to my theology is also open. But it kinda inspires me, you know?