[OBW]

Gubei,

You said this to Igzy:

“You cannot provide me with some prescriptive verses supporting your model. And, as you agreed, your model is based on logic.

If that's the case, you should not evaluate others' model by the yardstick which you yourself cannot abide by. Then, why did you repeatedly ask providing prescriptive verses on the ground of locality?

Your are getting around this issue. Please directly answer.”

This statement establishes that you do not understand what Igzy is saying. He is not prescribing anything. He is denying the establishment of doctrines that prescribe when there is no scripture in support of such prescription. The first sentence I quoted above is much better turned back on yourself. You are supporting a doctrine that make prescriptive requirements but you are unable to support those requirements with scripture. You are only able to point to places where it might be accurate to suggest that your position is described.

We provide a model that is consistent with scripture where it prescribes, but allows freedom where it does not. We do not see the extremes of prescription that Lee, and apparently you see. We need no scripture to support freedom in Christ where you cannot find restriction prescribed. The question is legitimately directed at you. You are prescribing. That requires support. Without that support, then there is the freedom in Christ that we support. We do not need to support freedom in Christ. But you need to support hard rules. And we do not see them. Rather than running from our question, you can only win the argument by actually providing the support Igzy requests.

When I read the verses you have provided so far, I do not see an prescription of a particular rule. They actually make no statement in support of such a position. It can only be said that if your prescription were true, the verse could stand as it is. But if there is no such prescription, the verse could also stand as is. Therefore, these verses do not define a prescription. They merely describe a set of facts that are insufficient to establish a prescription in scripture.

So asking Igzy how people moving around is supposed to be policed can only be understood as suggesting that they should be policed. Since Igzy has no prescriptive rule on the subject, there is no objective fact that can be scrutinized to say that moving from one assembly to another is in error. He is not asking you to tell him how to police it under his understanding. He is asking you to explain how, and why, it should be policed. You need to look at your model for that answer. You need to explain how scripture prescribes an answer that is steadfast and sure.

He asked, but expected the answer to be consistent with the one city one church rule which is already being argued as not prescribed by scripture. That means that under his model there is no simple answer. In fact, the only answer is that if it is a problem before God, then God will deal with it one way or another. There is no need for man to impose more stringent rules to keep people from moving around. As he has said, there are many reasons to move. If there is not divisiveness in the heart, or a desire to run from legitimate discipline, it is not denied by scripture. There is no rule to make a person stay anywhere.