Ron Kangas Message

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church met in multiple locations, but considered themselves all one church. Unlike denominations which consider themselves to be different churches, or different 'flavors' of church. The denominations are basically sects, as they broke away and separated from the original and only one church in each city which existed in the time of the apostles.

The bible says Jesus is coming back for His church, not for a particular sect. Note that I use the proper and absolute definition of sect here, as a group which cuts or divides from the original group. Catholics/Orthodox also use this correct absolute definition. I don't use the term sect in a relative way, as Protestants/Reformers use it, which means those holding minority views in regards to their definitions of the Trinity, Confession of Faith etc.

No long ago you said "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about and now multiple locations are fine?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

No long ago you said "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about and now multiple locations are fine?

It's about meeting in one accord which does not necessarily mean a single location but typically does. If the 12 disciples at pentecost met in different places that would suggest they were not in one accord but had some disagreement between them. That is the situation today with denominations, baptist meet next door to Lutheran and their buildings are mostly empty there's no reason for them to not join together but they don't because they are different types of Christians.


Most denominations are not only not meeting in one accord to hasten the Lord's return, but also not praying for the Lord's return in a specific way on a regular basis like we do in the LC.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's about meeting in one accord which does not necessarily mean a single location but typically does. If the 12 disciples at pentecost met in different places that would suggest they were not in one accord but had some disagreement between them. That is the situation today with denominations, baptist meet next door to Lutheran and their buildings are mostly empty there's no reason for them to not join together but they don't because they are different types of Christians.


Most denominations are not only not meeting in one accord to hasten the Lord's return, but also not praying for the Lord's return in a specific way on a regular basis like we do in the LC.

OK, so now you say it's about one accord and not about locations. Then what role does locality of city have in this one accord?

All believers in a particular city need to meet in one accord and there is no need to have one accord between different localities?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

OK, so now you say it's about one accord and not about locations. Then what role does locality of city have in this one accord?

All believers in a particular city need to meet in one accord and there is no need to have one accord between different localities?

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

But when many Christians meet together in one accord you never respect that, rather condemn them all for "shaking hands over the fence."

Even if true, that's far better than the way LSM leaders treat us in the GLA. They won't even shake hands.

Look, God is very capable of telling us exactly what He wants. If He wanted there to be only one church per city, He would have told us this in the Word. Look at the detail He gave about the Temple! He spelled out exactly what He wanted. If one church per city was the Way to go, surely He would have said so! Our God knows that we are prone to failing and to mistakes. If He wanted us to do this so badly, He would have said it where no mistake could be made and no guessing would be necessary. Something like this: "Thou shalt have only ONE church in each city."

At the time Revelation and other parts of the New Testament were written, they were not yet large (in today's terms) in number. So, the Lord addresses THE church in each city because, more than likely, it was the only one due to size. Also, people lived in very close proximity to one another and cities were much more compact. This, plus the smaller numbers, ensured one church per city--for a time. Again, if God wanted there to be only one church per city, He could/would have said so. There would be no guessing--no straining to make an example into a doctrine.

Regarding the idea of a MOTA: if this were really true, again--why is it not clearly spelled out in the Word? But again, we only have ideas and thoughts about what we see in scripture as the basis for this. Since Paul wrote so much of the NT, then HE must be the MOTA of that age, they say. But does Paul dare to claim this? No. Does Peter--who walked with the Lord? No. John? No. Is it not ridiculous that all of this time later there should be a person with the audacity to claim this? Where is humility? It is gone. There is no MOTA--there are MANY ministers in each age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Look, God is very capable of telling us exactly what He wants. If He wanted there to be only one church per city, He would have told us this in the Word. Look at the detail He gave about the Temple! He spelled out exactly what He wanted. If one church per city was the Way to go, surely He would have said so! Our God knows that we are prone to failing and to mistakes. If He wanted us to do this so badly, He would have said it where no mistake could be made and no guessing would be necessary. Something like this: "Thou shalt have only ONE church in each city."

At the time Revelation and other parts of the New Testament were written, they were not yet large (in today's terms) in number. So, the Lord addresses THE church in each city because, more than likely, it was the only one due to size. Also, people lived in very close proximity to one another and cities were much more compact. This, plus the smaller numbers, ensured one church per city--for a time. Again, if God wanted there to be only one church per city, He could/would have said so. There would be no guessing--no straining to make an example into a doctrine.

Regarding the idea of a MOTA: if this were really true, again--why is it not clearly spelled out in the Word? But again, we only have ideas and thoughts about what we see in scripture as the basis for this. Since Paul wrote so much of the NT, then HE must be the MOTA of that age, they say. But does Paul dare to claim this? No. Does Peter--who walked with the Lord? No. John? No. Is it not ridiculous that all of this time later there should be a person with the audacity to claim this? Where is humility? It is gone. There is no MOTA--there are MANY ministers in each age.

Christ told us what he wants here:
John 17:21 that all of them may be one

Some people think this is about setting up one church in each city, but it is not. It is about "the one church", in each city. The Bible teaches one Head, one Body, one Church (Col 1:18). The idea of one church per city is a statement of fact about the reality of the matter that there is only one church in the world and only one church that Christ established.

Denominations violate this truth because they see themselves as individual and independent churches. As soon as a denomination or a person starts saying "churches" , they are already not in line with the reality as revealed in the Bible. They stand for many heads, many bodies, and many churches.

Regarding the MOTA, one would find it difficult to deny that God raises up individuals (not many people) to release His vision of the age including Abel, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Paul.

In fact it is almost comedy when people say there are MANY ministers in each age yet if they read the New Testament, almost half of it is written by Paul! Who is the other Minister of The Age on the same level as Paul? Timothy? Silas? Barnabus? James?

Protestants in particular, should know better that there is only one MOTA because everytime they say "we are saved by faith alone" that vision was from Luther alone. The idea of the "local church"came from Nee/Lee but now many groups and denominations are using that term but they have MOTA Nee to thank for it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

Hey ... ya got it bro. Amen.

Regarding crowded, compact living situations in Paul's time...here is a description of Rome.
HOUSING - APARTMENT BLOCKS
As elsewhere, whether on a farm or in the city, daily life still centered on the home, and when people arrived in the city, their first concern was to find a place to live. Space was at a premium in a walled metropolis like Rome, and from the beginning little attention was paid to the housing needs of the people who migrated to the city - tenements provided the best answer. The majority of Roman citizens, not all of them poor, lived in these apartment buildings or insulae. As early as 150 BCE, there were over 46,000 insulae throughout the city. Most of these ramshackle tenements were over-crowded and extremely dangerous resulting in residents living in constant fear of fire, collapse, and in some areas there was the susceptibility to the flooding of the Tiber River. Initially, little concern from the city was given to designing straight or even wide streets (streets, often unpaved, could be as narrow as six feet or as wide as fifteen), not allowing for easy access to these buildings if a fire did occur. It would take the great fire under Emperor Nero, to improve this problem when streets were widened and balconies built to provide safety as well as access in time of an emergency. These “flats” were usually five to seven stories in height (over seventy feet); however, because many of these tenements were deemed unsafe, laws were passed under Emperors Augustus and Trajan to keep them from becoming too tall; unfortunately, these laws were rarely enforced.

Overcrowding and very narrow streets lead to very compressed and crowded conditions. The wealthy lived in much better conditions but, as Paul indicated, not many of the saints were of that class.

I am sure that other references can be found. We cannot saw that crowded and compact ancient cities are, as a description, factually incorrect.

[Drake]

-1

Unreg,

You are describing inside the physical wall... not the sprawl. The population inside the wall is estimated at about 15% of the population of the city of Rome. We are talking millions of citizens, not including slaves and non-citizens for the total population of the city of Rome in the first century.

Not always within walking distance or a short ox cart ride to the meeting.

That is where your explanation falls out of bed. You have a theory and are searching for facts to support it. The facts do not support your theory.

Drake