[Gubei]

OBW,

It seems that you do not understand my previous posts. And you are wrongly boiled down what I said. How many times did I say that you or Igzy should correlty "quote" what I really said? You are cliaming that you read my all posts, but you are repeating the same questions that I already answered.

You wrote.
"Using NYC is an interesting choice. It is composed of the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. These all are, by normal definitions, cities with their own mayors. In fact, Brooklyn by itself would be among the top 10 cities in the US. But for whatever reason, these cities banded together as one to comprise New York City, which also has its mayor. If you watch TV, you would see that the NYC District Attorney is really just the DA for Manhattan."

OBW, yes you are in the better postion than me to define whether NYC is one city or 5 cities. I'm not American. I just have been to NYC one time. So, you are advised to officially ask the city hall of NYC on whether NYC should be regarded as one city or 5 cities according to the political definition. If they answer one city, there should be one church. If they answer 5 cities, there should be 5 churches. And then, apply this principle to other cities. Do not ask me. Please ask the American government officials on the matter of cities. You just need to follow their instructions as Paul did in the Roman Empire.

Concerning "one city - one church - one set of eldership in tha city," I already gave you enough explanation in my previous posts. Please re-read what I said using some bilbical verses and othe expositors' interpretation.

But, once again for your convenience,

(Titus 1:5) 『For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--』

Now without the word "church" in our discussion, we are advised to appoint elders in every city.


More interestingly, you and Igzy are denying the fact that Igzy presented his model prescriptively. I showed you what "prescribe" means by the definitions of some authoritative English dictionaries. You are just denying that simple fact now. You can discuss truths in the Bible. But, please do not change the fact. I'm happy because all the correspondences are recorded in this thread for all to see.

Igzy wrote.
“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?”

"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.”

“Allowing free movement actually prevents division rather than encourages it. For example, suppose some saints feel their leadership is no longer following the Lord. If they feel compelled to stay by a locality principle or some such they are expected to squelch their impulse. In some cases this may be good, but there are bound to be cases where the Lord is indeed moving them to make a change. If they are not free, they must eventually make a confrontation and ugly things are bound to happen.

On the other hand, if they are free to leave, then they can go in peace. Neither side has to loudly condemn the other because of the "each being fully persuaded in their own mind" principle. They simple need to be free to follow there consciences.”

“Freely moving is not the same thing as being divisive. Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude. For example, I may leave a church to move to another one in a divisive way, or in a pure way, it all depends on my heart.”

Now please look at the definition of "prescribe" from another dictionary - Encarta of MS.

pre•scribe [pri skrb]
(past and past participle pre•scribed, present participle pre•scrib•ing, 3rd person present singular pre•scribes)
verb
1. vti order use of medication: to order a course of treatment for a patient, usually the use of a particular drug at set times and dosages
Most doctors are wary of prescribing antibiotics for relatively minor infections.

2. vt recommend remedy: to recommend a particular course of action or treatment as a remedy for something
I prescribe lots of tender loving care.

3. vt lay down rule: to say with authority that a course of action should be taken
the penalties prescribed by law

4. vi set down regulations: to lay down rules or laws
5. vti law claim property right: to claim a right to something on the grounds of possession over a long period of time

Do not forget that Igzy added the biblical authority to his model by mentioning "freedom in Christ."

1. And please focus on Igzy's model once again.

“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.”

Igzy two times said "the Bible (also) indicates." Indicates what? First, the appointment of the official leaders, second, the recognition of the appointment by consensus. I agree. And then? Suddenly, for some reason (Igzy did not give us the reason), one does not agree with the consensus which is according to the Lord. Then he is FREE to move! Do you think this is the remedy of the Bible? This is the model in the NT? Of course, you are free to move as an American who have the right of free movement according to the Constitution. But how about as an Christian? Do you have any biblical verses that permit this kind of movement?

OBW, please answer these questions before you go on.

2. Another problematic things in your post.

You wrote.
"There are many doctrines that have been developed from descriptions. And those are almost all controversial when all Christians are asked to make a determination as to their scriptural correctness. Only the basics of the faith are understood consistently. Note that even the doctrine of the trinity is not a fundamental of the faith. Neither is baptism by emersion, or Calvinism v Armenianism. Likewise, you may like to hold to a doctrine of one church per city. But when you make it a requirement — like a fundamental of the faith — it defeats itself by taking a divisive stand in the name of unity. It defines those who disagree as in error. And to correct that error, they must agree with you. It is never the answer that you determine that you are incorrect and allow them."

a. "Note that even the doctrine of the trinity is not a fundamental of the faith."

OBW, please tell me. Who said this? Is Trinity not fundamental to you?

b. "But when you make it a requirement — like a fundamental of the faith — it defeats itself by taking a divisive stand in the name of unity."

OBW, now I'm very serious. Is that what I actually said in my previous posts?
PLEASE "QUOTE" WHAT I SAID, not your wrong understanding!

c. "it defeats itself by taking a divisive stand in the name of unity."

OBW, you are assuming that taking the ground of locality is equivalent to taking a divisive stand.
But, please refer to the definition of being divisive which was given by Igzy - your collaborator now.

"Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude" - Igzy

You wrote.
"So, once again, you need to de better than say the same things in different ways. Scripture does not appear to be on your side. Don’t prove me wrong by analogy or metaphor. Find scripture that says it must be. If scripture says it must be, then it must be. But we have not been shown where it makes such a statement. In fact we have found where it indicates quite the contrary."

a. Did I prove you wrong by analogy or metaphor? Please quote those if any.
b. Please write EXACTLY where it indicates quite the contrary.




Gubei