Ron Kangas Message

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

[Ohio]

It is readily apparent from scripture that Rome and Colosse both had more than one assembly.

The doctrine of one church one city is a vain attempt to sustantiate all of Nee's and Lee's claims that they alone are His testimony, that these two are the latest in a series of Protestant MOTA's, that all other Christians on earth are hopelessly divided, that they alone are overcomers, etc. etc.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

Unreg - I appreciate you asking our poor brother drake for sources, but can you please provide your sources as well?

The the doctrine of one church per city is a dead doctrine created by fallen man.

2 Cor 11

Just a few of the sources:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/637/roman-daily-life/

Note, in particular, #2, 3, and 4:

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/the-seve...-city-dweller/

Note the housing of the poor/middle class (insulae): (very close together)

www.crystalinks.com/romebuildings.html

Note mention of crowded conditions inside city walls and comment regarding area just outside city walls carrying stigma of poverty:

https://globalperipheries.wordpress....amples-suburbs

m.historyextra.com/article/romans/dangerous-streets-ancient-rome

I guess my point is that due to limitations in number and means of transportation, and--one I have not mentioned before--the fact that there were still living apostles and disciples of the apostles alive to minimize intrusion of "new" doctrines, the church was "one" church. Within the city walls, Rome's area was only 5.3 square miles. Yes, suburbs existed but they were almost identical (among the poor) to those inside the walls. So, there really WAS just "one" church--but that changed as the numbers grew and as various new teachers arrived with different/unique "visions" of what the true doctrines were. Due to not having a feeling of uniqueness in location or teaching from other churches, they did not give themselves a unique name. The fact that they did not have any other name caused the Lord to call them by their city's name. I just can't see that this means it is the way God sees and counts churches today. If that were so, I think He would have said so. The only reason it happened in Revelation is because of what I stated above. He spoke to them as they were.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

The church of Witness Lee is also a denomination and division in the purest sense. It is the most divisive and denominational church I've ever been a part of.

What are examples of this church bearing fruit?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The church of Witness Lee is also a denomination and division in the purest sense. It is the most divisive and denominational church I've ever been a part of.

After living through LSM's divisive practices with the GLA, I came to the exact same conclusion. For base gain and the lust for power, they can extract any nonsense they desire from the scripture. Ever have your house "plastered" after you have been declared a "leper?"

I also concluded that the hypocrisy at LSM in Anaheim rivals any that Jesus Himself faced in Jerusalem.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

Which early church are you talking about? How early, for example?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Which early church are you talking about? How early, for example?

When the churches mentioned in Revelation were existing.