Quote:
Originally Posted by NewManLiving
The way I have come to see it: The early church grew so rapidly that they were referenced by where they lived and where they assembled, such as in a believers' house. There is no direct instruction given anywhere in the New Testament concerning the "ground". All believers in a particular city or home naturally "assembled" together. The emergence of sects and divisions cannot change that nor can "taking the ground" change anything as well.
|
Initially there was a single gathering in Rome or Antioch or Pergamos, say, because there were only a few Christians in that city, who were either brought into the faith by one preacher, or by that preacher's disciples.
Quote:
|
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation..~Rom 15:20
|
Quote:
|
...so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in someone else's territory..~2 Cor 10:16
|
And so forth. Look at Acts 8, for example, and Philip being the one who preached the gospel in "a city in Samaria" (v.5). There would naturally be one gathering to follow that one preaching work. Then, over time, the saints would have different meetings in different physical locations, which (separate) meetings were also called 'ekklesia', by the way. Multiple Christian gatherings in one urban area! Shocking!
The Brethren idea to recreate that initial push, thousands of years later in cities where the gospel was already well-established, and Christian history had already taken its course, was a fool's errand. They could not see it at the time, of course, but it clearly was a back-water in the move of God on the earth. A regression; perhaps deliberate and with good intentions, but as ill-founded as the Sabbatarians trying to recreate Saturday as the holy day of God's rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewManLiving
It just creates another division, excluding all other believers in that city. All believers in a city or home or where two or three are gathered together become part of the total assembly in that location. Even if they are divided in a sense by certain practices or beliefs. Anything more is confusion. The brethren practiced confusion and exclusion and the LSMLC continues the same practice since that is where they got it from. All they accomplish is the creation of yet another division that produces more pride and exclusion. The Churches of God by GH Lang, the book that WL allegedly spit on is an excellent study especially for those still holding the doctrine of the dirt.
|
The LC recognizes the need of division by creating "college-age meetings" and "Chinese-speaking meetings" and "home meetings" and "prayer meetings" and dividing geographically with Meeting Hall 1 and Meeting Hall 2 and other geographic ideas. But those divisions are okay, right?
"It's okay when we divide, because circumstances and practicality force it. But when others divide there is no excuse."
Um, sure.
Yes there were camps and parties within early Christianity. Allegiances and shifting allegiances. But where did the "local ground" cure that? It didn't. We saw the same thing in the LC. We saw people driving past one meeting hall to go to another, because the saints in the second one were more absolute, or had better child care meetings, or whatever. And nobody said a word.