[Gubei]

OBW,

I have to say that you are very inconsistent in describing your position.

You wrote.

“First, denying that there is a prescription is not prescribing anything.”

But please read this written by Igzy.

“1.The Lord never taught the local ground.
2.The apostles never taught the local ground.
3.The early church fathers never taught the local ground.
Why should we teach it?”

Igzy not only denied the ground of locality, but also said “Why should we teach it?”
This means that we SHOULD NOT teach it. This is what is called “prescription.”

My Longman dictionary gives me these definitions for “prescriptive.”

“1 saying how something should or must be done, or what should be done
prescriptive teaching methods 2.stating how a language should be used, rather than describing how it is used”

And then he gave us his model.

"Eldership is confirmed, therefore, by recognition by followers. I.e. People follow the leader(s) because they are persuaded in their own minds that the Lord wants them to follow those leaders. So although a leader may be the official leader of a church, no one is compelled to meet with that church. They are free to meet where the Lord leads."

“The Bible indicates that the official leader(s) is/are appointed by the Lord. This appointment is recognized by consensus, which the Bible also indicates. If one doesn't agree with the consensus, one is free to meet elsewhere. (Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.) This is my model.”

In Igzy’s model, I cannot find such words as “likely, possibly, probably” but I find simple present tense assertions – simply speaking, “prescription.” Especially, pay attention to the last shocking sentence – “LET each be fully persuaded in his own mind.” This reminds me of the great declaration of God in Genesis - “LET there be light.” Igzy’s writing is simply PRESCRIPTIVE.

You wrote.

You are suggesting that we must find a description that matches what we do to allow it. But Paul clearly admonished freedom in Christ where there was not something requiring something different. That may not have ever been said in the context of how to meet in terms of one city one church, or simply assembling with believers however we do it, but it was freedom in Christ.”

I assume you are saying Gal. 2:4

(Gal 2:4) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.(NIV)

This verse is related to the matter of circumcision – or keeping the Mosaic Law. This is not even descriptive for explaining how to meet. You simply failed in presenting both prescriptive and descriptive verses in the Bible to defend your position. Simply you are extending or extrapolating too much. If you can extend the boundary of the freedom in Christ as far as you wish, why not even to accepting the ground of locality?

You wrote.

“The biggest problem with your position is not that it is clearly wrong, but rather that you state that it is “according to the Bible” when it is at most following a pattern seen in the Bible but not stated as “the” way. But what do you do when Paul makes mention of the church in someone’s house? Was that not in reference to an assembly of believer’s in a house where there was also referenced a church in the city?”

Yes, the ground of locality is following a pattern seen in the Bible but not stated as “the” way. I agree. Then, how about Igzy’s model? Please show me as many verses about “free moving of saints” as the ground of locality. And then please show me that “free moving of saints” is “the” way. OBW, you are requiring others of what you yourself cannot do.

You wrote.

“This is where YP’s desire to associate the term “church” or “assembly” only with a single physical gathering is potentially incorrect. We see clear references to an assembly ─ in this case within a house ─ as the church (assembly) while the entirety of the city was also referred to as the church. This happened in the letters to the Romans (16:11), Corinthians (1st 16:19), and in Colossians (4:15) referring to a house that was either in Colossae or Laodicea. So Paul referred to the city as a whole, but also to a subset of that city ─ a group meeting in a house ─ as the church. He did not call them Hall 2, or refer to them as derelict in understanding the right way to meet because they met separately. They must not have met with the others or there would be no need to greet them separately from the general greeting in the beginning of the letter.”

OBW, please read the following verses.

Rom 16:4 who for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles:
Rom 16:5 and salute the church that is in their house. Salute Epaenetus my beloved, who is the first-fruits of Asia unto Christ.

1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Col 4:15 Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house.
Col 4:16 And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.

You can find such expressions as “the first-fruits of Asia unto Christ,” “cause that it (the epistle) be read also in the church of the Laodiceans.” How many saints do you think Paul got in Asia when he said “the first-fruits?” How many saints could have been there to read the epistle of Paul at that time – before invention of printing, e-mail, internet, TV? The reason they gathered together in their house is that the number of saints in a city was really small to the extent that they can gather in a specific house. Paul is intimately describing the situation by saying the church that is in their house.

And then, please think about this. The Bible clearly is saying that elders were appointed according to cities. Our issue is about the practice of church life centering on the matter of administration which is related with the appointment of elders. So, I ask you to show me the biblical verses which “prescriptively” are saying there were many churches in a city with each eldership.

You wrote.

“So, do you use a piano in your meetings? Guitar(s) (acoustic or electric)? These are not described as being part of worship in the New Testament. We now read from books. Should we revert to scrolls? I know that these may seem silly or even sarcastic. But I am serious. If there must be a description to allow something that is not prohibited but there is nothing prescribing something contrary, then much of what we now do must be ended.”

OBW, we are talking about models of how to meet which is according to the Bible. You seem to be thinking that how to meet and using piano is on the same level among the truths in the Bible. As you said, we do not necessarily need to have the biblical verses to allow something, for example using piano. But how about appointing elders? Do you really think that you do not need to read the Bible to find any examples, or patterns conducted by the Apostles? Please read the NT. What kind of examples do you find? Free moving of saints? Please read the Bible before you use your logic.

You wrote.

“You want to talk about the Trinity. Yes, I accept the truth of the Trinity. But I will assert that despite Justyn’s claim that there is a clear doctrine on the subject, it is not that clearly singular even among the most ardent evangelical groups. In fact, making a general doctrine of the Trinity that must be agreed to in full or you are a heretic is quite problematic. When I review the Berean’s own version, I am happy to accept it as essentially true. But they would argue that disagreeing, even nuancing it a little, results in teaching a “different Christ” with suspicion about its adherents’ salvation. ....”

OBW, do you think you are answering my question? My question was “if you accept Trinity – whether it be more tritheism or more modalism, please show me any PRISCRIPTIVE verses supporting it.” You are getting around the issue. Anyway even in your writing, it is very obvious that Christians are drawing PRISCRIPTIVE conclusions using descriptive verses.

You wrote.

“As for the divisive person, I have seen this in action. A sister began to cause division in our assembly. After some warning, and some time, she was asked to leave. While we did not send letters to every other assembly to exclude them from all fellowship, we presume that if the patterns begin again somewhere else, it will happen again. Do you presume that “have nothing to do with them” means that everyone everywhere must exclude them? It does not say that. I should note that this person is not necessarily persona non grata at IBC. She has been back on occasion. But without some kind of clear repentance, she is not welcome to regularly be among the fellowship at IBC. This was not a case of excommunication.”

“She was asked to leave.” This is what is called “division.” Regardless of taking any model, it is impossible to have no problem. OBW, it is not the ground of locality but the divisive ones that make problem. Do not be confused in causality.

You wrote.

“Last, the issue with the “ministries” in Phil 1 was not that they did or did not belonged to Paul’s ministry. It was about actions taken for the sake of creating affliction for Paul. Do you presume that ministries not belonging to Paul always caused him affliction or were somehow in conflict with him? These verses to do not say that. They do not suggest that a ministry must belong to Paul. You have taken verses in which Paul rejoiced in the proclamation of the gospel even by some who thought that such public proclamation might have a negative impact on him in his prison, and turned it into a claim that ministries were either Paul’s or were in conflict with Paul. These verses do not say that. This is an assumption not supported by the scripture.”

I do not fully understand what you are saying. I quoted Phil 1 in order to say that there could be a lot of ministries and Paul seems to have recognized those.

You wrote.

“But Igzy is denying the one city one church model. He is doing so by 1) demonstrating that scripture does not command it and 2) shows that following it` can only result in errors that contradict it. It is a circle of errors that cannot stand as a prescribed way.”

You are evaluating only the half of Igzy’s claiming. Please be FAIR!
Igzy is saying that we should practice the free moving of saints depending on the Lord’s will. But he failed in presenting any prescriptive or descriptive verses in the Bible to support his model. Furthermore, the so called “circularity error” is nothing other than the misunderstanding of causality. Furthermore, if any elder can reject divisive ones, that is contradict the free moving of saints.